Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 29728
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V. Kunhikrishnan, J
Fousiya Darar – Appellant
Versus
Secretary, Kochi Municipal Corporation – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 17203 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M.K. Sumod, Vidya M.K., Thushara K, Meera S Gopan, Sudhir Nambiar P. V., Rema T.P.
For the Respondents: E. Sheena
The High Court directed the municipal authority to determine whether works qualify as exempted 'petty repairs' under Rule 8(vii) of the KMBR, 2019, while keeping a contentious stop memo in abeyance pending such determination.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged a stop memo issued by the municipal authority regarding building repairs, claiming exemption under R.8(vii) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 2019, which permits petty repairs without structural changes. The court considered the urgency regarding the upcoming monsoon season and directed the authority to reconsider the petition submitted by the owner after providing a hearing. The key issue was whether the intended alterations constituted unauthorized construction or permissible petty repairs under the building rules requiring no prior sanction. The court determined that provided the work is restricted to petty repairs without structural modifications, the matter should be adjudicated by the authorities rather than summarily stopped. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the authority to pass a reasoned order on the petitioner's response within one month, while keeping the stop memo in abeyance in the interim, subject to the final outcome of the administrative decision.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. judicial review of municipal stop memos involving alleged exempt petty repairs. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
JUDGMENT
The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:
"i) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the stop memo with ref. no. FCP2/3414281/25 dated 28/04/2026 issued by the office of the 1st Respondent.
ii) Issue writ of mandamus directing the 1st Respondent to not interfere or attempt stop the Petitioner from carrying out the needed petty repairs to the building and pitched roofing without making any structural changes to the building.
iii) Issue writ of mandamus directing the 1st Respondent to consider the response dated 29/05/2026 after giving the Petitioner an opportunity of hearing and withdraw the stop memo FCP2/3414281/25 dated 28/04/2026, in a time bound manner as deemed fit and proper by this Hon’ble Court.
iv) Dispense with filing the translation of vernacular documents.
v) Grant such other reliefs as this Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. "
[SIC]
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P5 stop memo. The petitioner submitted Ext.P6 before the 1st respondent. According to the petitioner, as per Rule 8(vii) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 2019 (for short ‘KMBR, 2019’), no permission is necessary because it is a petty repair to an existing building. It is also submitted that the monsoon season is coming, before that if the construction is not completed, the petitioner will be in trouble.
3. Considering the circumstances of the case, I think, there can be a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P6 and pass appropriate orders forthwith. In the meanwhile, Ext.P5 can be kept in abeyance, on condition that the construction made by the petitioner will be subject to the result of the decision by the 1st respondent.
Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:
i) The 1st respondent is directed to consider Ext.P6, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also in the light of Rule 8(vii) of the KMBR, 2019, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
ii)Till then, Ext.P5 shall be kept in abeyance. But, I make it clear that, construction if any made by the petitioner will be subject to the final decision in Ext.P6.
