Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 23392
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
PRASAD P – Appellant
Versus
THE CORPORATION OF KOZHIKODE – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 36091 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.S.K.SAJU
For the Respondents: SRI.G.SANTHOSH KUMAR (P)
Timely processing of building permit applications is mandated, ensuring compliance with procedural fairness and prompt decision-making by authorities.
Headnote:Statute Analysis: The writ petition seeks a direction under the provisions relating to mandamus to compel the timely processing of a building permit application. Facts of the Case: The petitioner claims all noted defects have been rectified and seeks judicial intervention for a decision on the permit.
Findings of Court:
The court orders the respondent to inspect the premises and consider the application within three weeks.
Issues: The court frames the question of whether the petitioner's application for a building permit should be processed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasons that an inspection is warranted to ascertain compliance with requirements, affirming that appropriate procedural orders should follow the inspection findings.
Result: The writ petition is disposed of with directions to the second respondent to inspect and decide on the petitioner's application within the stipulated timeframe.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. request for building permit decision. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. counsel presented their arguments. (Para 3) |
| 3. court directed an inspection and decision. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :
i) “Issue a Writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to consider and dispose the application submitted by the petitioner for building permit within a time frame as fixed by this Hon’ble Court.
(ii) To call for the records leading to Ext P3 stop memo and to quash the same arbitrary, illegal and unjustifiable; (iii) To direct the respondents to pay cost to the petitioner for unnecessarily dragging the petitioner to litigation.
(iv) To dispense with the filing of the translation of all vernacular documents.
(v) Issue such other reliefs or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the above case.” [sic]
2. The main prayer in this writ petition is to issue a direction to the respondents to consider and dispose the application submitted by the petitioner for building permit within a time frame. According to the petitioner, some defects are noted by the Corporation and the petitioner now cured all the defects and submitted Ext.P11 on 09.04.2025. The same is not considered is the grievance.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation.
4. After hearing both sides, I think this writ petition need not be retained here. There can be a direction to the 2nd respondent to inspect the premises of the petitioner, either by himself or depute an authorised officer and thereafter, consider Ext.P11 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a time frame. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions :
1) The 2nd respondent/an authorised officer deputed by the 2nd respondent will inspect the premises of the petitioner and find out whether the defects are cured.
2) Based on the report as directed above, the 2nd respondent will consider Ext.P11 and pass appropriate orders in it, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE SKS
PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED
Judgment reserved
NA
Date of Judgment
13/03/2026
Judgment dictated
13/03/2026
Draft judgment placed
16/03/2026
Final judgment uploaded
17/03/2026
