Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 8726
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
SUBHALEKSHMI G. – Appellant
Versus
THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 40742 OF 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.ANEESH JAMES, SHRI.JIJO THOMAS, SMT.M.D.BEENA, SHRI.AJAY SANKAR A.S.
For the Respondents: SRI.GEORGE MATHEW, SHRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G, SHRI.MATHEW K.T., SHRI.GEORGE K.V., SHRI.BOBY MATHEW, SHRI.STEPHY K REGI, SHRI.ADITHYA BENZEER, SMT.MEDHA B.S., SHRI.JOHN ZACHARIAH DOMINIC, SRI.K,JANARDHANA SHENOY
Timely consideration of applications under municipal regulations is essential for fair administrative practice.
Headnote:Statute Analysis: The Kerala Municipality Building (Regularisation of Unauthorised Construction) Rules, 2018 are cited. Facts of the Case: Petitioner seeks a writ mandamus directing processing of an application for regularization of construction.
Findings of Court:
Court directs respondents to accept the application and pass appropriate orders.
Issues: The issue revolves around the processing of an application under specific municipal rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasizes the necessity of due process and timely consideration, stating, 'there can be a direction to the Corporation to accept Ext.P13'.
Result: This writ petition is disposed of with the directives to accept and process Ext.P13.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for regularization processing (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. counsel's arguments regarding application acceptance (Para 4) |
| 3. court's directive on application handling (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT
The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:
a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to process Exhibit P9 application as mandated under Rule 6 of the Kerala Municipality Building (Regularisation of Unauthorised Construction) Rules , 2018 and forward the same to the 2nd respondent for passing of orders on Exhibit P9 by the 3rd respondent, within a time limit to be stipulated by this Hon’ble Court.
b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to keep in abeyance all proceedings to implement Exhibit P4 till such time a decision is taken on Exhibit P9 by the 3rd respondent.
c) Dispense with the filing of English Translation of documents in vernacular language d) Issue such other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deem fit while considering the peculiar circumstances of the case."
[SIC]
2. When this writ petition came up for consideration before this Court on 19.11.2024, this Court passed the following order:
“The learned Standing Counsel takes notice for the first respondent. The learned Government Pleader takes notice for respondents 2 and 3. Issue notice by speed post to the fourth respondent. In view of the fact that the application for regularization has been filed by the petitioner, there will be an interim order, as prayed for, for a period of one month. Post on 19.12.2024.”
The above interim order is regularly extended.
3. Now in the statement filed by the 1st respondent, Annexure R1(b) is produced, in which it is stated that, regularisation is applicable only to the building completed on or before 30.07.2017. The petitioner submitted that the demolition notice was issued on 06.06.2017 as evident by Ext.P4, and that shows that the building was constructed before that date. Now the petitioner try to submit Ext.P13 before the Corporation authorities for regularisation.
4. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the same is not accepted because of the pendency of this writ petition.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think, there can be a direction to the Corporation to accept Ext.P13 and pass appropriate orders in it, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and all other affected parties.
Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:
(i) The 1st respondent is directed to accept Ext.P13 and process and forward it to the 2nd respondent (if it is in order).
(ii) The 2nd respondent will consider the same and pass appropriate orders in it, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the 4th respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of Ext.P13 with supporting documents.
(iii) Till final orders are passed, the interim order already passed by this Court will continue.
Sd/-
