Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 9993
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
ABHILASH K – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 34883 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW
For the Respondents: SRI.K.V.ANIL KUMAR, SHRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR, SMT.BABY SUJATHA, SMT.RADHIKA S.ANIL, SHRI.NIJAZ JALEEL, SRI T NAVEEN, SC
Regularization applications must be considered with due process to ensure compliance with local laws regarding building operations.
Headnote:This writ petition, under Section 233 of the Kerala Panchayathraj Act, challenges an ongoing operation of a crusher unit in an unauthorized building. The court determined the need for hearing on the pending regularization application, directing resolution within a month. The court highlighted essential hearings to resolve alleged unauthorized operations. The outcome mandates timely actions on the regularization application to ensure compliance and address the petitioners' grievances.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners challenge unauthorized building operation. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. pending regularization matters raised by the respondent. (Para 3) |
| 3. court urges timely resolution of regularization application. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
“(i) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari calling for the records leading to Ext.P6 and quash the same as arbitrarily and illegal, in the interest of justice.
(ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent No. 3 to see that the 5threspondent is not running crusher unit in any unauthorized buildings and without obtaining valid Establishment permit underSection 233of theKerala Panchayathraj Act, within the 2ndrespondent Gramapanchayath, in the interest of justice.
(iii) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent No. 4 to consider Ext.P3 Complaint and pass orders after giving chance of being heard to the petitioners, within the time limit fixed by this honorable court, in the interest of justice.
(iv) Dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular documents.
(v) Grant such other reliefs just and proper in the nature of this case.”[SIC]
2. The grievance of the petitioners is that a crusher unit is functioning in an unauthorised building by the
5th respondent.
3. The counsel appearing for the 5th respondent submitted that an application for regularisation of the building is already pending before the 3rd respondent.
4. If that be the case, I am of the considered opinion that this Writ Petition need not be retained here. There can be a direction to consider the regularisation application, if any pending, with notice to the petitioners and the 5th respondent, within a time frame. Based on the decision taken in the regularisation application, the Panchayat will take appropriate steps.
Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of in the following manner:
1. If any regularisation application submitted by the 5th respondent is pending before the 2nd and 3rd respondents as on today, the same should be considered and pass appropriate orders in it, after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the 5th respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
2. If no regularisation application is pending as on today, the 2nd and 3rd respondents will do the needful, if the 5th respondent is conducting any crusher unit in an unauthorised building.
3. If the regularisation application is pending, the
2nd and 3rd respondents will do the needful based on the decision taken in the regularisation application.
Sd/-
