THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.06.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J

JUDGMENT

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

" i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other

appropriate writs, orders of directions

calling for the records leading to

Exhibits.P5, P6, and P13 and set aside

the same as it is patently illegal and

arbitrary;

ii) Direct the 2nd respondent to

reconsider the petitioner’s application

for granting of building number;

iii) Grant such other reliefs as this

Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper

in the circumstances of the case."

[SIC]

The petitioner and three others have constructed a commercial building on the land comprised in resurvey No. 295/22 and 295/28 of Panamaram SRO, owned by them, is the submission. After the completion of the construction of the building, the petitioner filed an application before the 2nd respondent for the building number. On 24.04.2025, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P3 notice in response to the building number application directing the petitioner to rectify the height of the building within 30 days with reference to the report of the Technical Department (Town Planner), 3rd respondent, Town Planner Wayanad and the decision of the 1st respondent, District Disaster Management Authority (DDMA), in the meeting held on 16.01.2025 as it has decided and directed the 2nd respondent not to issue building number stating that the height of the building exceeds permissible limit. As per Ext.P4 report submitted by the 3rd respondent to the 1st respondent, it is submitted that the sectional drawing in the approved plan shows the retaining wall and the height for the building as 9.85 metres from the retaining wall. It is also mentioned in Ext.P4 that the retaining wall is constructed to retain the soil in the slope area of the land. It is submitted that the 1st and 2nd respondents have failed to appreciate the findings of the Ext.P4 report. Challenging the Exts.P3 and P5 decision of the 1st respondent, the petitioner has filed WP(C) 20378/2025 before this Court and the same was disposed of by permitting the petitioner to file his objection, if any, to Ext.P3 notice, within three weeks from the date of judgment. As directed by this Court, the petitioner has filed an objection before the 2nd respondent stating that the construction is solely based on the approved building plan and permit issued by the 2nd respondent is the submission. The petitioner has appeared in person on 12.08.2025 before the 2nd respondent is the further submission. The 2nd respondent has issued an order dated 20.08.2025, denying the issuance of the building number, stating a violation of the permit. The petitioner challenged Exts.P5 and P13 orders. Hence, this writ petition.

Heard the Senior Counsel Adv.P.Deepak, assisted by Adv.Ameen Hassan.K, the Standing Counsel appearing for the Panchayat. I also heard the Government Pleader.

Petitioner challenge Ext.P13. This Court perused the same. A perusal of Ext.P13 would show that the Panchayat is relying on Ext.P5 issued by the DDMA. In such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner can be allowed to file a representation before the 4th respondent, and a provisional number can be directed to be issued to the petitioner, subject to the final decision by the DDMA.

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

1. The petitioner is free to submit a representation narrating the grievance raised in this writ petition before the 4th respondent, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

2. If such a representation is received, the 4th respondent will consider the same and pass appropriate orders in it, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the 2nd respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the representatio