Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 17278
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
RAMESH – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 5268 OF 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY), SHRI.JOSEPH FRANCIS
For the Respondents: SRI.SABU GEORGE, SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN, SRI.MANU VYASAN PETER, SRI K JANARDHANA SHENOY, GP
The court emphasizes the right to prompt consideration of complaints regarding unauthorized construction by local authorities.
Headnote:The Writ Petition seeks directives for action against unauthorized construction and consideration of complaints by the Panchayat. The court determined it appropriate for the Panchayat to review the representations. Key issues include the lack of response from the Panchayat on the complaints. The court mandates the Panchayat to act promptly and provide fair hearing within two months. The final verdict instructs the 3rd respondent to consider the issues raised within the stipulated time frame.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks action on unauthorized construction. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court mandates timely action and hearings. (Para 3 , 4) |
JUDGMENT
This Writ Petition (C) is filed seeking the following reliefs:
" 1) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, directing the 2nd and 3rd respondents to take immediate action in Exhibit P2 and Exhibit P6 complaints dated 09-11-2023 submitted by the Petitioner. 2) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, directing the 5th respondent to take immediate action in Exhibit P-4 complaint 20-11-2023 submitted by the Petitioner.
3) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, directing the 3rd respondent to take immediate action against the 4th Respondent‘s building constructed in violation of the Building Rules.
4) To grant such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts of the case."
[SIC]
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that there is unauthorised construction by the 4th respondent, and the petitioner approached the 3rd respondent with a representation, but the 3rd respondent has not considered the same.
3. Heard counsel for the petitioner, the Government Pleader and the counsel appearing for the 4th respondent.
4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think, there can be a direction for the Panchayat to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner with notice to the petitioner and the 4th respondent.
Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:
1. The 3rd respondent is directed to consider Ext.P6 and pass appropriate orders in it, after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the 4th respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment.
2. Petitioner will produce the certified copy of the judgment along with a copy of this writ petition with exhibits before the 3rd respondent for compliance.
Sd/-
