2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 23983
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
V.M.RADHAKRISHNAN – Appellant
Versus
THE PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 11861 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SMT.KAVERY S THAMPI
For the Respondents: SRI BINOY VASUDEVAN, SC
The court mandates timely processing of building permit applications, emphasizing adherence to municipal rules.
Headnote:The petitioners seek a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to process a building permit application per the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 2019. The court found that the petitioner's application was not processed and ordered expeditious processing within 30 days of receiving the judgment. The court's directives centered on procedural compliance and timely action in administrative decisions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court considers delayed processing of building permit applications. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. counsel representations heard regarding application processing. (Para 3) |
| 3. court orders expedient processing of the application. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:
"i) To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writs orders or direction directing the 2nd respondent to take up Ext P5 application and issue building permit in their application as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court;
ii) To issue a Writ to declare that the 2nd respondent is bound to pass orders on the application for building permit within the time frame prescribed by the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 2019;
iii) Dispense with the production of the translated copy of the vernacular documents produced in the writ petition;
iv) Grant such other reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case; and"
[SIC]
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that Ext.P5 building permit application is not processed by the 2nd respondent.
3. Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Municipality also.
4. After hearing both sides, I think this writ petition need not be retained here, and there can be a direction to the 2nd respondent to process Ext.P5, if it is still pending.
Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:
i) The 2nd respondent is directed to process Ext.P5, and pass appropriate orders in it, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, if it is received and pending as on today.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE AJ
PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.7917/2007 OF SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, PALAKKAD DATED
Judgment reserved
NA
Date of Judgment
26.03.2026
Judgment dictated
26.03.2026
Draft judgment placed
28.03.2026
Final Judgment uploaded
31.03.2026