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) 13295

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
SHALIF MOHAMMED – Appellant
Versus
THE KOCHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 6757 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.V.N.HARIDAS, SHRI.SAIFUDEEN T.S, SMT.B.SHAMEERA, SMT.NIMISHAMOL SASIDHARAN
For the Respondents: SRI K JANARDHANA SHENOY, SC

Council's improper delegation in appeal determination necessitates a fresh hearing by the Council.

Headnote:The petitioner seeks a Writ in certiorari to quash Exhibit P14 and directs the 3rd respondent to consider the appeal filed earlier. The court finds that Ext.P14 is an improper delegation of authority by the Council and must be set aside for a proper hearing on the appeal. The court clarified that the decision is made without assessing the merits of the case. The court orders the 3rd respondent to rehear the appeal within two months after receiving this judgment.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks to quash improper order (Para 1 , 2)

JUDGMENT

The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:

"i. Issue a Writ in the nature of certiorari or other appropriate Writ, Order, or direction quashing Exhibit P14 ii. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 3rd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders in the statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner in compliance with the direction of this Hon’ble Court in WA No

1847 of 2019 and in the light of Exhibit P5.

iii. To dispense with the filing of the translations of vernacular documents iv. Issue such other writ, orders, or directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. "

[SIC]

2. The impugned order in this case is Ext.P14. The Division Bench of this Court as per Ext.P12 judgment, directed the 3rd respondent-Council to consider the appeal. The appeal was filed against an order passed by the 2nd respondent-Secretary to the Corporation Council. As per Ext.P14, which is the proceedings of the 2nd respondent-Secretary to the Corporation, it is seen that the appeal pending before the Council is decided by delegating the power to the Secretary to decide the matter and the Secretary had rejected the application. I am surprised to see such an order. When an appeal is filed against an order passed by the Secretary before the Council, the Council is delegating the same Secretary to decide the matter. Such a procedure is unheard of. I am of the considered opinion that Ext.P14 is to be set aside. I make it clear that, I have not considered the matter on merit. But, the Council of the Corporation has to decide the matter and pass appropriate orders in the appeal.

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

i) Ext.P14 is set aside.

ii) The 3rd respondent is directed to consider the appeal as directed in Ext.P12 judgment, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

iii) I make it clear that, I have not considered the matter on merit, and I am setting aside the impugned order only for the reason that the appeal is not considered by the Council.

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