Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 29941
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J
Shibu – Appellant
Versus
Kozhikode Corporation – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 10644 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: V.V.Surendran, P.A.Harish, Sanika.V.S., Apoorva Ramkumar
For the Respondents: V.Krishna Menon, Deepa V
An administrative authority cannot arbitrarily revoke a validly issued building or excavation permit based solely on public objection without conducting a proper factual assessment and providing a reasoned decision.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged a stop memo issued by local authorities regarding the removal of earth from a construction site, despite having obtained prior permission. The petitioner contended that a valid permit cannot be revoked solely based on public objection. The court determined that authorities must conduct a proper assessment rather than relying merely on public outcry, requiring reconsideration in light of existing permits. The core issue is whether a validly issued earth removal permit can be summarily halted due to public objections without a structured evaluation of the facts. The Ratio Decidendi establishes that administrative authorities must balance public concerns with existing lawfully granted permits, necessitating a reasoned decision-making process rather than arbitrary stop orders. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction for the petitioner to submit a formal objection to the stop memo, and for the respondent to pass orders within a specified timeframe.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of facts involving issuance of a stop memo after obtaining valid permits. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. requirement for reasoned administrative decisions when handling public objections against valid permits. (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 quashing Ext. P4 stop memo issued by the 4th respondent.
ii. Dispense with the production of English translation of the vernacular exhibits.
Iii. Issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Honorable Court may deem just, fit and proper to grant for the redressal of the grievances of the petitioner.
(SIC)
2. Petitioner purchased an extent of 14.055 ares of land in Chelavoor village, Kozhikode Taluk. He obtained a building permit to construct a house having a floor area of 79.83 square meters is the submission. It is also submitted that the petitioner also obtained permission to remove ordinary earth for the purpose of construction. It is submitted that, even before the petitioner could start the work of removing ordinary earth, the 4th respondent issued a stop memo calling upon the petitioner to stop removing earth. The reason stated in the stop memo is that there is objection from the local public is the submission. The definite case of the petitioner is that, once a permit issued by the competent authority, it cannot be stopped merely for the reason that there is objection from the public. Hence this writ petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation.
4. This Court perused Ext.P4 stop memo. A perusal of Ext.P4 would not show that the Corporation authorities considered Ext.P3, the permit issued by the competent authority of the 4th respondent. When a competent authority issued permit, simply because there is some objection from the public, the Corporation cannot issue stop memo without conducting a proper study. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the Corporation authorities should reconsider the matter in the light of Ext.P3, within a time frame. The petitioner is free to file appropriate application before the 5th respondent also to renew Ext.P3, if it is already expired.
Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of in the following manner:
1. The petitioner is free to submit an objection to Ext.P4 before the 4th respondent, within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
2. Once Such an objection is received, the 4th respondent will consider the same and pass appropriate orders in the light of Ext.P3, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the objection.
