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) 19912

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J
B. RADHAKRISHNAN – Appellant
Versus
THE DIRECTOR GENERAL KERALA FIRE AND RESCUE SERVICES – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 7192 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI. RAJ CAROLIN V.
For the Respondents: SRI. DHEERAJ A.S., GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SHRI.V.KRISHNA MENON, SC, KOZHIKODE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

The court directed reconsideration of a renewed application for fire NOC following rectification of previously identified deficiencies.

Headnote:The petitioner, owner of a three-star bar hotel, sought renewal of fire NOC which was initially rejected. This Court previously set aside that rejection and ordered reconsideration. After deficiencies were claimed to be rectified, the Court directed a further reconsideration of the application. Court finds merit in the reconsideration following rectification of deficiencies. The order of reconsideration was mandated within two weeks from receipt of this judgment.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's application for renewal of fire noc was denied due to deficiencies. (Para 1 , 2)
2. petitioner claimed deficiencies rectified and sought reconsideration. (Para 3)
3. court ordered reconsideration of the petitioner's application. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT

Petitioner is the owner of a Bar hotel having a three star classification. Petitioner had submitted Ext.P3 application to the Fire Department for renewal of the fire NOC for his hotel. However, it was rejected by Ext.P6. The said order was later set aside by this Court in W.P.(C) No.48389 of 2025 and directed a reconsideration. Again, after reconsideration, the department issued Ext.P11 and Ext.P14 orders, rejecting the application, pointing out certain deficiencies.

2. According to the petitioner, consequent to Ext.P14, he filed Ext.P15 application for extension of time to rectify the defects pointed out and approached this Court in this writ petition seeking a direction to consider his application for extension of time. By an order dated 24.02.2026, this Court recorded the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the rectification work will be completed within two weeks and hence stayed the coercive action pursuant to Ext.P4 till today.

3. When the matter was taken up for consideration today, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the deficiencies pointed out in Ext.P14, have been rectified and that, if 3rd respondent reconsiders Ext.P3 application, it would be evident that the deficiencies are not in existence and the petitioner would become entitled for grant of renewal of No Objection Certificate.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader and on a perusal of the various documents produced in this writ petition, including Ext.P14, I am of the view that if the petitioner has rectified the deficiencies pointed out in Ext.P14, certainly the application submitted as Ext.P3 can be reconsidered.

Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 3rd respondent to reconsider petitioner's application for renewal of fire NOC, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, notwithstanding Ext.P14.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

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