SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 33798

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J
Kochu Thresya – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 19005 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: V.John Mani, Sethulakshmi K.K., Fathima Shahna A.A., Abhishek S.
For the Respondents: Vidya Kuriakose

Where a statutory representation is pending before a local authority regarding alleged illegal acts, the High Court may direct the authority to hear all parties and pass orders without preemptively adjudicating the merits of the allegations.

Headnote:The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to prevent unauthorized construction and obstruction of a pathway by private respondents and to direct the local authority to consider a pending representation regarding these violations under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019. The Court noted that since a representation was already pending before the competent authority, the matter could be resolved by directing said authority to hear all interested parties. The primary issue concerned the alleged illegal obstruction of a pathway and the non-consideration of the petitioner's complaint by the local body. The Court reasoned that it was unnecessary to adjudicate the merits at this stage, holding that the respondent authority should provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the private respondents to ensure natural justice. The writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the third respondent to consider the representation in accordance with the law within six weeks.

Table of Content
1. petitioner seeks intervention against illegal obstruction. (Para 1 , 2)
2. directing local authority to address pending representations. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)

JUDGMENT

This Writ Petition (C) is filed seeking the following reliefs:

" I. To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or such other writ, order or direction to stop/prevent all further construction activities conducted by the Respondent No. 4 to 8.

II. To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or such other writ, order or direction to remove illegal and unauthorised obstruction caused by the Respondent No. 4 to 8 on the pathway in front of Petitioner’s compound wall and to conduct inspection and take appropriate action and impose penalty for violation of the provisions of Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019.

III. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to consider Ext P3 representation.

IV. Issue such other writ or pass such orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of Justice.’

V. To dispense with filing of vernacular document."

[SIC]

2. According to the petitioner, respondents 4 to 8 are doing illegal construction and dumping waste in the pathway that leads to the petitioner's premises. Petitioner submitted Ext.P3 before the 3rd respondent. The same is not considered, is the grievance. Hence, this writ petition.

4. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader.

5. The manner in which this writ petition is going to be disposed of, no notice is necessary to the respondents 4 to 8. If they are aggrieved by any of the directions issued by this court, they are free to file a review petition before this court.

6. Since Ext.P3 is pending before the 3rd respondent, there can be a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider the same with notice to the petitioner and the party respondents.

Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:

1. The 3rd respondent is directed to consider Ext.P3 and pass appropriate orders in it, after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and respondents 4 to 8, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

2. I make it clear that I have not considered the matter on merit, and the 3rd respondent is free to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law.

3. The petitioner will produce a certified copy of this judgment, along with a copy of the writ petition with exhibits, before the

3rd respondent for compliance.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top