Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 12320
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
JAYAKUMARI @ KUMARI MINI – Appellant
Versus
THE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 5759 OF 2026
Important Points
Subject
Civil - Writ Petition
Headnote
(C) was filed seeking a writ of Certiorari to quash a demolition order and a writ of Mandamus for the regularization application to be decided. The Court found that the demolition order was appealable and that the regularization application was already dismissed, thus concluding the petition was not maintainable. The court ultimately dismissed the petition.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.V.S.THOSHIN, SHRI.ARHAM ANWAR
For the Respondents: SHRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of reliefs sought in writ petition. (Para 1) |
| 2. court's findings regarding the maintainability of the petition. (Para 2) |
JUDGMENT
This Writ Petition (C) is filed seeking the following reliefs:
" 1. Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the demolition order dated 23/05/2022 (Exhibit–P7) and all consequential proceedings initiated by the respondents.
2. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to consider and pass orders on the petitioner’s application for regularisation dated 31/03/2021 (Exhibit–P2) within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon’ble Court, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.
3. Issue a writ of Prohibition restraining the respondents from taking any coercive steps, including demolition, pursuant to Exhibits P3, P6 and P7, pending consideration of the regularisation application."
[SIC]
2. The main prayer in this writ petition is against Ext.P7 order passed by the Corporation on 23.05.2022. It is an appealable order. The time to file an appeal has already over. In the light of the dictum laid down by this Court in Suresh K. v. Municipal Corporation of Kollam [ 2026 (1) KHC 406 ], this writ petition is not maintainable. At that stage, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that Ext.P2 regularization application is pending. This Court directed the Standing Counsel to get instructions as to whether Ext.P2 is still pending. The Standing Counsel submitted that Ext.P2 has already been dismissed. If that is the case, the prayers in this writ petition cannot be entertained.
Hence, this writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
