SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 13069

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



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.SANJANA JAYAKUMAR
For the Respondents: SMT. VIDYA KURIAKOSE, SR. GP

The court determines that a prior ruling governs the case, directing permit consideration without excess charges, pending appeal outcomes.

Headnote:The writ petition concerning the building permit application involves the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus for the 2nd respondent to process the application without additional payment demands. The petitioner cites a relevant prior case (Abad Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala) asserting that the issue is settled. The court agrees but conditions the ruling based on an ongoing appeal. The petitioner's request is granted in part.

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/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top