Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 29574
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J
Mejo C. Joseph – Appellant
Versus
Secretary, Thrikkakara Municipality – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 5211 OF 2026 | WP(C) NO. 28718 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Gokul Das V.V.H., Dinesh R.Shenoy, Shanthipriya D. Shenoy, Mohamed Shali Namshad, Anjana A., Ananda Subramaniam, Helan Paulouse, Jacob Joy, Anagha O.
For the Respondents: S.Jamal, Gokul Das V.V.H., S.Ranjit
When an application for regularization of unauthorized construction is pending before the competent municipal authority, the authority is duty-bound to adjudicate the application on its merits after hearing all affected parties, and must refrain from taking coercive enforcement actions until such decision is reached.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 - Section 406(2) - Unauthorized construction - Regularization of non-compliant structures - Where a formal application for regularization of construction has been submitted by an owner, supported by proof of payment of the requisite fees, it is incumbent upon the local municipal authority to consider and adjudicate upon the merits of such application. (Paras 5, 7, 8)
(B) Administrative Law - Duty to hear - Requirement of fair procedure - When considering an application for regularization of unauthorized construction, the municipal authority is legally obligated to provide an opportunity of being heard to both the applicant and any aggrieved parties who have challenged the legality of said construction, ensuring principles of natural justice are upheld. (Para 8)
Facts of the case:
The case involves two interconnected petitions concerning a property where an unauthorized building was allegedly constructed. One party sought a mandate for the implementation of demolition orders against the alleged illegal structure, while the other party sought to quash notices concerning the structure, relying on an order from a statutory tribunal that directed the regularization application to be processed before implementing any coercive measures.
Findings of Court:
The Court observed that although there was a dispute regarding whether the application was filed, the production of a payment receipt and an application receipt sufficiently established that an application for regularization had been submitted. Consequently, the municipality must dispose of the matter following a proper hearing process.
Issues: The main issue was whether the municipal authority can proceed with enforcement actions against an alleged unauthorized construction while a pending application for regularization exists.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that once an application for regularization is on record, accompanied by evidence of fee payment, the municipal authority must adjudicate the application on its merits. During the pendency of this decision, no coercive measures (such as demolition) should be enforced, maintaining the status quo until the application is determined.
Result: Writ petitions disposed of with a direction to the local authority to hear all parties and decide the regularization application within 30 days.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history and consolidation of connected writ petitions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. assessment of regularization applications for unauthorized constructions. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
JUDGMENT
These two Writ Petitions are connected, and therefore, I am disposing of these Writ Petitions by a common judgment.
2. The prayers in W.P.(C) No.28718 of 2025 is extracted hereunder:
"A) A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 1st respondent to take up and pass enforce and implement Exhibits P3 and P11 orders forthwith within the time frame fixed by this Honourable Court.
B) A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 1st respondent not to renew or continue in operation, any license for conduct of the ice factory or other business in the illegal unauthorised building constructed by the 2nd respondent in his property in Sy.No. 260/10, Vazhakkala Village, Kotteth Road, Thrikkakara Municipality, till a final decision is taken in terms of the direction of this court on prayer A.
C) Grant such other reliefs as are deemed fit and proper in the facts and the circumstances of the case.
D) Petitioner also prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dispense with the translation of the documents produced in the Vernacular Language."
[SIC]
3. When the above Writ Petition came up for consideration before this Court on 21.01.2026, this Court passed the following order:
“If Exhibits P3 and P11 orders are final, the
1st respondent will take necessary steps to implement the same within six weeks and submit a report before this court after compliance.
Post on 12-03-2026.”
4. Thereafter, W.P.(C) No.5211 of 2026 was filed with the following prayers:
"(i) to call for the records leading to Exhibits P6, P8 and P11 orders and Exhibit P17 notice and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari. (ii) to call for the records leading to the passing of Exhibit P13 order and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari.
(iii) to issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram to adjudicate and consider and pass appropriate orders on Exhibit P12 appeal afresh on merits, within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon’ble Court.
(iv) to pass such other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.
(v) to dispense with the production of the English translation of the documents produced in the vernacular."
[SIC]
5. The contention of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.5211 of
2026 is that, as per Ext.P13 order, the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”) directed not to implement Ext.P11 order till the disposal of the application for regularisation submitted by the petitioner in that case. The petitioner produced Exts.P14 and P15 to prove that an application is submitted for regularisation. Hence, W.P.(C) No.5211 of 2026 is filed.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both these Writ Petitions and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Municipality.
7. This Court perused Ext.P13 order of the Tribunal produced in W.P.(C) No.5211 of 2026. It will be better to extract paragraph No.11 of the above order:
“11. Point No.(ii)
Considering the finding in point No.(i) appeal is only liable to be dismissed.
In the result, appeal is dismissed.
The respondent is directed not to implement the impugned order till the disposal of the application for regularization submitted by the appellant as per the receipt dated 11/1/19 produced by the appellant.”
8. According to the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.5211 of
2026, he submitted an application for regularisation, as evident by Ext.P14 receipt, and produced a receipt showing payment of the application fee for regularisation as evident by Ext.P15. Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.28718
