IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
DR. ABITH AKBAR – Appellant
Versus
KARALAM GRAMAPANCHAYATH – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 4521 OF 2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. mandamus prayed for considering building permit (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. counsel argue regarding the applicant's rights (Para 3) |
| 3. prior case influence on current petition (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed with following prayers:
i. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on the building permit application submitted by the petitioner, as evidenced by Ext.P4, without insisting on payment of any additional charges towards built-up area as demanded in Ext.P5, within such time as may be fixed by this Hon’ble Court.
ii. issue such other orders, writs or directions as are deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court.
iii. award cost of this proceedings to the petitioner.
iv. dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular documents produced as Exhibits in the writ petition.
(SIC)
2. Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P5 communication by which the petitioner is directed to pay conversion fee for the building. The petitioner relied on the decision reported in Abad Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala [2025 (1) KHC 306] .
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. I also heard the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2.
4. There is no dispute to the fact that the point raised in this writ petition is covered in favour of the petitioner in the decision reported in Abad builders Pvt. Ltd.’s case (supra). If that is the case, the prayers in this writ petition can be allowed. The Standing Counsel for the Panchayat and the Government Pleader submitted that the decision in Abad builders Pvt. Ltd.’s case is challenged before the Division Bench by filing Writ Appeal No.495/2025. Therefore, I make it clear that the direction issued by this Court will be subject to the final decision in Writ Appeal No.495/2025.
Therefore, this Writ Petition is allowed in the following manner:
1. Ext.P5 is set aside.
2. The 2nd respondent is directed to consider the building permit application, without insisting fee as demanded in Ext.P5, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, if the application is otherwise in order.
2. It is also made clear that the direction issued by this Court will be subject to the final decision in Writ Appeal No.495/2025.
sd/-
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.