Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 22845
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
P.PRATHAPACHANDRAN – Appellant
Versus
CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 11771 OF 2026
Important Points
Subject
Administrative Law - Local Government
Headnote
Findings of Court:
The court directed the first respondent to act on the complaint while giving a fair hearing to the parties involved and mandated action within three months.
Issues: The court addressed the issue of the adequacy of response to complaints regarding unauthorized constructions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for a timely consideration of complaints while ensuring parties' rights to hearings in the decision-making process.
Result: The Writ Petition was disposed of directing the first respondent to act within three months and provide opportunities for the involved parties.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.G.P.SHINOD, SRI.GOVIND PADMANAABHAN, SHRI.AJIT G ANJARLEKAR, SHRI.ATUL MATHEWS, SMT.GAYATHRI S.B.
For the Respondents: SHRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SMT DEEPA K R
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. unauthorized construction complaint not considered (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. no need for notice to 4th respondent (Para 3) |
| 3. provisional order issued by corporation (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:
"(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, commanding the 1st respondent to consider and pass final orders in Exhibit P1 complaint seeking immediate action to remove the illegal constructions, expeditiously, at any rate within a time limit stipulated by this Honourable court .
(ii) Dispense with the filing of translation of vernacular documents.
(iii) to grant such other and further reliefs which are deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. "
[SIC]
2. According to the petitioner, there is unauthorised construction from the side of the 4th respondent. The petitioner submitted Ext.P1 before the 1st respondent. The same is not considered is the grievance.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Special Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation. The manner in which this writ petition is going to be disposed of, no notice is necessary to the 4th respondent. If the 4th respondent is aggrieved by any of the directions issued by this Court, the 4th respondent is free to review petition before this Court.
4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation submitted that, provisional order is already issued and necessary steps will be taken in accordance with the law, within a time.
In the light of the submission of the Standing Counsel, I think there can be a direction to consider Ext.P1 and do the needful in accordance with the law, within a time frame. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:
