Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 26619
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
AMEER KARIYATHIL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 13697 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.FAHAD HUSSAIN, SHRI.SIDDIQUE C.
For the Respondents: GP SMT DEEPA V, SRI SANTHOSH P PODUVAL,SC, SRI GEORGIE JOHNY,SC
Stop memo on permitted borewell construction requires hearing petitioner before final decision.
Headnote:The petitioner challenges a stop memo issued by the local panchayat halting borewell construction despite prior permits from relevant authorities. The court examines compliance with permitting procedures and principles of natural justice. The court finds the stop memo requires review with hearing. Issue: Whether the stop memo is illegal without hearing. Ratio: Petitioner entitled to submit objections and hearing before final decision on construction permit validity. Writ petition disposed directing consideration of petitioner's objections with notice and hearing within specified timelines.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to stop memo on permitted borewell digging. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. hearing counsel; no notice needed to private respondents. (Para 3) |
| 3. direct submission of objections with hearing mandated. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed with following prayers:
i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records leading to the issuance of Exhibit P7 stop memo and quash the same as being illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the principles of natural justice;
ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, permitting the petitioner to continue the construction/digging of the borewell in accordance with the valid permit issued as per Exhibit P5;
iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents not to interfere with the lawful construction activities carried out by the petitioner pursuant to Exhibit P5 permit;
iv. Pass an order dispensing with the production of English translation of vernacular documents at the time of filing of the writ petition.
v. Such other relief that this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (SIC)
2. Petitioner is aggrieved by a stop memo issued by the Panchayat, as evident by Ext.P7. According to the petitioner, he is constructing the bore-well based on the permit issued by the Panchayat and other authorities. After issuing permit, the Panchayat issued Ext.P7 is the grievance. Hence this writ petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. I also heard the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3, and also the learned Standing Counsel for Water Authority. The manner in which this writ petition is going to be disposed of, no notice is necessary to respondents 5 and 6. If they are aggrieved by any of the directions issued by this Court, they are free to file a review petition.
4. This Court perused Ext.P7. It is a stop memo issued by the 3rd respondent. I think the petitioner can be allowed to submit his objection to the same narrating all the contentions raised in this writ petition. If such a representation is received, there can be a direction to consider the same with notice to the petitioner and respondents 5 and 6.
Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of in the following manner:
1. The petitioner is free to submit his objection to Ext.P7 before the 3rd respondent, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
2. If such an objection is received, the 2nd respondent will consider the same and pass appropriate orders, after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and respondents 5 and 6, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the objection.
