Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 11230
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
SAVITHRI – Appellant
Versus
PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 6285 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.HARISH R. MENON, SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR, SMT.K.N.ABHA, SRI.A.G.PRASANTH, SMT.VARSHA SAHAJAN, SMT.MARY HEDWIG BABY, SMT.FATHIMA HASHIM, SMT.ANNU FRANCIS
For the Respondents: SRI BINOY VASUDEVAN, SC
The court emphasizes the right to object against municipal stop orders while ensuring due process is followed by the authorities.
Headnote:This judgment concerns WP
(C) NO. 6285 OF 2026 under provisions of municipal construction regulations. The petitioner seeks to quash a stop memo issued for unauthorized construction despite having a valid building permit. The court permits objections to the stop memo and mandates a hearing for resolutions. Main issues addressed include the authority of the Municipality and the procedure for addressing complaints against stop orders. The court concludes by directing the Municipality to consider objections within a stipulated time frame, ensuring due process for all parties.
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed with the following prayers:
“a. Call for the records leading to the issuance of Exhibit P8 stop memo issued by the 2nd respondent dated 31.01.2026 and quash the same by issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, direction or order.
b. Declare that the 2nd Respondent is not authorized to issue stop memo in the nature of Exhibit P8 interdicting the construction of the first floor of an existing building when the ground floor has been constructed in terms with building permit issued by the Municipality and there is no deviation the construction.
c. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the Respondents 1 and 2 not to interdict the Petitioner from completing the construction of the first floor of the existing building in terms with Exhibit P5 building permit as long as there is no deviation in the construction.
d. To dispense with the filing of English translation of vernacular documents produced along with the Writ Petition.
e. grant such other reliefs which this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.” (SIC)
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P8 stop memo issued by the Secretary to the Municipality. According to the petitioner, there is absolutely no unauthorised construction from the side of the petitioner.
3. Heard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. The manner in which this writ petition is going to be disposed of, no notice is necessary to respondent Nos.3 and 4. If respondent Nos.3 and 4 are aggrieved by any of the directions issued by this Court, they are free to file a review petition before this Court.
4. This Court perused Ext.P8 stop memo. According to the petitioner, there is no unauthorised construction and he is only constructing the first floor in an existing building. If that be the case, the petitioner can be allowed to submit his objection to Ext.P8 to the Municipality within a time frame and there can be a direction to consider the same, within a time frame.
Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:
1. The petitioner is free to submit his objection to Ext.P8 before the 2nd respondent within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
2. If such an objection is received, the 2nd respondent will consider the same and pass appropriate orders in it, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and respondent Nos.3 and 4, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the objection.
