Kerala High Court
Grace Antony vs V.M. Abdul Shukoor on 8 August, 2025
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
2025:KER:60337
WA NO. 780 OF 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 17TH SRAVANA, 1947
WA NO. 780 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 11.04.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.23754 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT NO.15 IN W.P.(C):
DAVID P.V
S/O. P.C VARGHESE, PANAKKAL HOUSE, AYYAPANKAVVU
P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682018
BY ADVS.
SRI.NAVANEETH D.PAI
SRI.LAKSHMI NARAYANAN
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS 1 TO 7 IN W.P.(c) AND RESPONDENTS
1 TO 14 AND 16 IN W.P.(C):
1 V M ABDUL SHUKOOR
AGED 63 YEARS, S/O. V. M. MOOSA,
VADAKKEVEETIL HOUSE, PALARIVATTOM P.O.,
ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682025
2 A V VEEBOY
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O. VARATHAPPAN, AYYAMKULANGARA HOUSE,
P. J. ANTONY ROAD, PACHALAM., PIN - 682012
3 T. I. DIXON
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O. IPPU, THOLATH HOUSE, PETER CORREYA ROAD,
PACHALAM P. O., ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682012
2025:KER:60337
WA NO. 780 OF 2024
2
4 ABDUL MAJEED
AGED 70 YEARS
S/O. K. V. KUNJIKOYA, DALIN HOUSE,
LIBERTY LINE, KALOOR., PIN - 682018
5 BEENA P K
AGED 48 YEARS, W/O. SHAJAN, CHERUVATHOOR HOUSE,
PACHALAM P. O., ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682012
6 S M AKBAR
AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. S. P. MUSTHAFA,
THATHANAT PARAMBIL HOUSE, MARKET ROAD,
TRIPUNITHURA., PIN - 682301
7 SHEENA MOHAN
AGED 51 YEARS,W/O. MOHAN C. I.,
CHERUVATHOOR HOUSE, LALSALAM ROAD,
PACHALAM P. O., ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682012
8 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 695003
9 THE COMMITTEE (CONSTITUTED UNDER SEC.78-A OF THE
KERALA MUNICIPALITY ACT)
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND THE PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL
SELF GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, DISTRICT., PIN - 695003
10 THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER
DEPARTMENT OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING,
SWARAJ BHAVAN, 2ND AND 3RD FLOOR, NANTHANCODU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, DISTRICT., PIN - 695003
11 DIRECTOR GENERAL
FIRE AND SAFETY SERVICES, FIRE FORCE JUNCTION,
PULIMOODU P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, DISTRICT.,
PIN - 695001
2025:KER:60337
WA NO. 780 OF 2024
3
12 DISTRICT FIRE OFFICER
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KADAVANTHRA P.O, KADAVANTHRA,
ERNAKULAM, DISTRICT., PIN - 682020
13 CORPORATION OF COCHIN
PARK AVENUE ROAD, MARINE DRIVE,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 682011
14 THE SECRETARY
CORPORATION OF COCHIN, PARK AVENUE ROAD,
MARINE DRIVE, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
KERALA., PIN - 682011
15 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KOCHI CORPORATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
KOCHI., PIN - 682011
*16 REETHAMMA (DELETED)
W/O. PAULOSE, KOLUTHARA HOUSE, THEVARVATTOM MURI,
THAYKKATTUSSERY VILLAGE, POOCHACKAL P. O,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT., PIN - 688528
*17 EALIKUTTY (DELETED)
D/O. VARGHESE, KOLUTHARA HOUSE, THEVARVATTOM
MURI, THAYKKATTUSSERY VILLAGE, POOCHACKAL P.O,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688528
RESPONDENTS R16 AND R17 ARE DELETED FROM THE
PARTY ARRAY OF W.A.780/2024 AS PER ORDER DATED
15.11.2024 IN I.A.2/2024 IN W.A.780/2024
18 JOSEPH KOLUTHARA
S/O. VARGHESE, KOLUTHARA HOUSE, THEVARVATTOM
MURI, THAYKKATTUSSERY VILLAGE, POOCHACKAL P. O.,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688528
19 ANTONY KOLUTHARA
S/O. VARGHESE, KOLUTHARA HOUSE, THEVARVATTOM
MURI, THAYKKATTUSSERY VILLAGE, POOCHACKAL P. O.,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688528
2025:KER:60337
WA NO. 780 OF 2024
4
20 GEORGE KOLUTHARA
S/O. VARGHESE, KOLUTHARA HOUSE, THEVARVATTOM
MURI, THAYKKATTUSSERY VILLAGE, POOCHACKAL P. O.,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688528
21 SEBASTIAN KOLUTHARA
S/O. VARGHESE, KOLUTHARA HOUSE, THEVARVATTOM
MURI, THAYKKATTUSSERY VILLAGE, POOCHACKAL P. O.,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688528
22 ADDL.R16 GRACE ANTONY,
AGED 67 YEARS, W/O ANTONY KOLUTHARA,
THEVARVATTOM MURI, THAYKKATTUSSERY VILLAGE,
POOCHACKAL P.O., PIN - 685 558. [ADDL.R16 IS
IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 06.02.2024 IN I.A-
1/2023 IN WP(C) 23754/2023]
BY ADVS.
SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU
SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH
SMT.ARYA RAGHUNATH
SHRI.KARUKAPADATH WAZIM BABU
SMT.P.LAKSHMI
SMT.AYSHA E.M.
SHRI.ABUASIL A.K.
SR GP SRI T K VIPINDAS
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
10.07.2025, ALONG WITH WA.683/2024, 684/2024 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 08.08.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:60337
WA NO. 780 OF 2024
5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 17TH SRAVANA, 1947
WA NO. 683 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 11.04.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.5712 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT(S)/ADDL 11TH RESPONDENT:
GRACE ANTONY
AGED 68 YEARS, W/O. ANTONY KOLUTHARA,
THEVARVATTOM MURI, THAYKKATTUSSERY VILLAGE,
POOCHACKAL P.O, PIN - 685558
BY ADVS.
SHRI.K.P.SUDHEER
SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR (SR.)
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 10:
1 V. M. ABDUL SHUKOOR
AGED 63 YEARS, S/O. V. M. MOOSA,
VADAKKEVEETIL HOUSE,
PALARIVATTOM P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682025
2 A. V. VEEBOY
AGED 62 YEARS, S/O. VARATHAPPAN,
AYYAMKULANGARA HOUSE,
P. J. ANTONY ROAD, PACHALAM, PIN - 682012
3 T. I. DIXON
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O. IPPU, THOLATH HOUSE, PETER CORREYA ROAD,
PACHALAM P. O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682012
2025:KER:60337
WA NO. 780 OF 2024
6
4 M. U. BOBEN
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O. UKKURU, MEKKATTUKULAM HOUSE,
PACHALAM P. O., ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682012
5 ABDUL MAJEED
AGED 70 YEARS
S/O. K. V. KUNJIKOYA, DALIN HOUSE,
LIBERTY LINE, KALOOR,, PIN - 682018
6 BEENA P. K
AGED 48 YEARS
W/O. SHAJAN, CHERUVATHOOR HOUSE,
PACHALAM P. O., ERNAKULAM,, PIN - 682012
7 P. P. VARGHESE
AGED 68 YEARS
S/O. P. V. PAILY, POONOLY HOUSE,
KANJOOR, KALADY P. O., ERNAKULAM,, PIN - 683574
8 S. M. AKBAR
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O. S. P. MUSTHAFA, THATHANAT PARAMBIL HOUSE,
MARKET ROAD, TRIPUNITHURA,, PIN - 682301
9 SHEENA MOHAN
AGED 51 YEARS
W/O. MOHAN C. I., CHERUVATHOOR HOUSE,
LALSALAM ROAD, PACHALAM P. O.,
ERNAKULAM,, PIN - 682012
10 CORPORATION OF COCHIN
PARK AVENUE ROAD, MARINE DRIVE, KOCHI,
KERALA, PIN - 682 011,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
11 THE SECRETARY
AGED 50 YEARS
CORPORATION OF COCHIN, PARK AVENUE ROAD,
MARINE DRIVE, KOCHI, KERALA, PIN - 682011
2025:KER:60337
WA NO. 780 OF 2024
7
12 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
CORPORATION OF COCHIN, PARK AVENUE ROAD,
MARINE DRIVE, KOCHI, PIN - 682011
*13 REETHAMMA
AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
W/O. PAULOSE, KOLUTHARA HOUSE,
THEVARVATTOM MURI, THAYKKATTUSSERY VILLAGE,
POOCHACKAL P. O., (DELETED), PIN - 685558
*14 EALIKUTTY
AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, D/O. VARGHESE,
KOLUTHARA HOUSE, THEVARVATTOM MURI,
THAYKKATTUSSERY VILLAGE, POOCHACKAL P. O.,
(DELETED), PIN - 685558
R13 AND R14 ARE DELETED AT TEH RISK AND COST OF
THE APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DATED 22.10.2024 IN IA
NO.282024 IN W,A.NO.683/2024
15 JOSEPH KOLUTHARA
AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
S/O. VARGHESE, KOLUTHARA HOUSE,
THEVARVATTOM MURI, THAYKKATTUSSERY VILLAGE,
POOCHACKAL P. O.,, PIN - 685558
16 ANTONY KOLUTHARA
AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
S/O. VARGHESE, KOLUTHARA HOUSE,
THEVARVATTOM MURI, THAYKKATTUSSERY VILLAGE,
POOCHACKAL P. O.,, PIN - 685558
17 GEORGE KOLUTHARA
AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
S/O. VARGHESE, KOLUTHARA HOUSE,
THEVARVATTOM MURI, THAYKKATTUSSERY VILLAGE,
POOCHACKAL P. O.,, PIN - 685558
18 DAVID P. V
AGED 67 YEARS
S/O. P.C. VARGHESE, RESIDING AT PANAKKAL HOUSE,
AYYAPPANKAVU P.O., KOCHI, PIN - 682018
2025:KER:60337
WA NO. 780 OF 2024
8
19 KOLUTHARA BAZAR OWNERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION
BROADWAY, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - REPRESENTED BY ITS
GENERAL SECRETARY R SAJEEV M.T, S/O. M.
THANKAPPAN. PIN-682031 (R13 AND R14 ARE DELETED
AT THE RISK AND COST OF THE APPELLANT AS PER
ORDER DATED 22/10/2024 IN I.A NO.2/2024 IN W.A
NO.683/2024)
BY ADVS.
SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU
SHRI.M.RISHIKESH SHENOY
SMT.R.RANJANIE
SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH
SMT.ARYA RAGHUNATH
SHRI.KARUKAPADATH WAZIM BABU
SMT.P.LAKSHMI
SMT.AYSHA E.M.
SMT.SHIFANA KAISE
SHRI.DENNIS BIJU
SHRI.ABUASIL A.K.
SHRI.SHAWN JOHNSON
SMT.MEERA M.
SMT.ANN MARY.V.I
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
10.07.2025, ALONG WITH WA.780/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 08.08.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:60337
WA NO. 780 OF 2024
9
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 17TH SRAVANA, 1947
WA NO. 684 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 11.04.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.23754 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT NO.16:
GRACE ANTONY
AGED 68 YEARS
W/O. ANTONY KOLUTHARA, THEVARVATTOM MURI,
THAYKKATTUSSERY VILLAGE, POOCHACKAL P.O,
PIN - 685558
BY ADVS.
SHRI.K.P.SUDHEER
SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR (SR.)
RESPONDENT/S:
1 V.M. ABDUL SHUKOOR
AGED 63 YEARS, S/O. V.M. MOOSA, VADAKKEVEETIL
HOUSE, PALARIVATTOM P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682025
2 A V VEEBOY
AGED 62 YEARS, S/O. VARATHAPPAN,
AYYAMKULANGARA HOUSE,
P. J. ANTONY ROAD, PACHALAM., PIN - 682012
3 T. I. DIXON
AGED 59 YEARS, S/O. IPPU, THOLATH HOUSE,
PETER CORREYA ROAD, PACHALAM P. O.,
ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682012
4 ABDUL MAJEED
2025:KER:60337
WA NO. 780 OF 2024
10
AGED 70 YEARS, S/O. K. V. KUNJIKOYA, DALIN HOUSE,
LIBERTY LINE, KALOOR., PIN - 682018
5 BEENA P K
AGED 48 YEARS, W/O. SHAJAN, CHERUVATHOOR HOUSE,
PACHALAM P. O., ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682012
6 S M AKBAR
AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. S. P. MUSTHAFA,
THATHANAT PARAMBIL HOUSE, MARKET ROAD,
TRIPUNITHURA., PIN - 682301
7 SHEENA MOHAN
AGED 51 YEARS, W/O. MOHAN C. I.,
CHERUVATHOOR HOUSE, LALSALAM ROAD, PACHALAM P. O.,
ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682012
8 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT
OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 695003
9 THE COMMITTEE (CONSTITUTED UNDER SEC.78-A OF THE
KERALA MUNICIPALITY ACT) REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHAIRMAN AND THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, DISTRICT., PIN - 695003
10 THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER
DEPARTMENT OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING,
SWARAJ BHAVAN, 2ND AND 3RD FLOOR, NANTHANCODU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
DISTRICT., PIN - 695003
11 DIRECTOR GENERAL
FIRE AND SAFETY SERVICES, FIRE FORCE JUNCTION,
PULIMOODU P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, DISTRICT., PIN -
695001
12 DISTRICT FIRE OFFICER
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KADAVANTHRA P.O, KADAVANTHRA,
ERNAKULAM, DISTRICT., PIN - 682020
2025:KER:60337
WA NO. 780 OF 2024
11
13 CORPORATION OF COCHIN
PARK AVENUE ROAD, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 682011
14 THE SECRETARY
CORPORATION OF COCHIN, PARK AVENUE ROAD,
MARINE DRIVE, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
KERALA., PIN - 682011
15 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KOCHI CORPORATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
KOCHI., PIN - 682011
*16 REETHAMMA
W/O. PAULOSE, KOLUTHARA HOUSE,
THEVARVATTOM MURI, THAYKKATTUSSERY VILLAGE,
POOCHACKAL P. O,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688528 (DELETED)
*17 EALIKUTTY
D/O. VARGHESE, KOLUTHARA HOUSE,
THEVARVATTOM MURI, THAYKKATTUSSERY VILLAGE,
POOCHACKAL P.O,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688528 (DELETED)
R16 AND R17 ARE DELETED AT THE RISK AND COST OF THE
APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DATED 22.10.2024 IN I.A
NO.2/2024 IN W.A.NO.684/2024
18 JOSEPH KOLUTHARA
S/O. VARGHESE, KOLUTHARA HOUSE,
THEVARVATTOM MURI,
THAYKKATTUSSERY VILLAGE, P
OOCHACKAL P. O.,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688528
19 ANTONY KOLUTHARA
S/O. VARGHESE, KOLUTHARA HOUSE, THEVARVATTOM MURI,
THAYKKATTUSSERY VILLAGE, POOCHACKAL P. O.,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688528
20 GEORGE KOLUTHARA
S/O. VARGHESE, KOLUTHARA HOUSE, THEVARVATTOM MURI,
2025:KER:60337
WA NO. 780 OF 2024
12
THAYKKATTUSSERY VILLAGE, POOCHACKAL P. O.,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688528
21 SEBASTIAN KOLUTHARA
S/O. VARGHESE, KOLUTHARA HOUSE, THEVARVATTOM MURI,
THAYKKATTUSSERY VILLAGE, POOCHACKAL P. O.,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688528
22 DAVID P.V
AGED 67 YEARS, S/O. P.C VARGHESE,
PANAKKAL HOUSE, AYYAPANKAVVU P.O,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT(R16 AND R17 ARE DELETED AT THE
RISK AND COST OF THE APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DATED
22/10/2024 IN I.A.NO.2/2024 IN W.A NO.684/2024.,
PIN - 682018
BY ADVS.
SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU
SHRI.M.RISHIKESH SHENOY
SMT.R.RANJANIE
SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH
SMT.ARYA RAGHUNATH
SHRI.KARUKAPADATH WAZIM BABU
SMT.P.LAKSHMI
SMT.AYSHA E.M.
SMT.SHIFANA KAISE
SHRI.DENNIS BIJU
SHRI.ABUASIL A.K.
SHRI.SHAWN JOHNSON
SMT.ANN MARY.V.I
SMT.ANASOOYA BABURAJ
SMT.ANJALA
SMT.MEERA M.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
10.07.2025, ALONG WITH WA.780/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 08.08.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:60337
WA NO. 780 OF 2024
13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 17TH SRAVANA, 1947
WA NO. 812 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 11.04.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.5712 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENTS 9 AND 10:
1 DAVID P.V.
AGED 68 YEARS, S/O. P.C. VARGHESE, PANAKKAL
HOUSE, CITIZEN ROAD, AYYAPPANKAVU P.O.,
ERNAKULAM, KOCHI -, PIN - 682018
2 KOLUTHARA BAZAR OWNERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION,
AGED 67 YEARS
BROADWAY, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - REPRESENTED BY ITS
GENERAL SECRETARY, SAJEEV M.T., S/O. M.
THANKAPPAN,
PIN - 682031
BY ADVS.
SMT.R.RANJANIE
SRI.NAVANEETH D.PAI
SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN (SR.)
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS 1 TO 9 IN W.P.© AND RESPONDENTS 1
TO 8 & ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT NO.11 IN W.P.(C):
1 V.M. ABDUL SHUKOOR,P
AGED 64 YEARS
AGED 64 YEARS, S/O. V.M. MOOSA,
VADAKKEVEETIL HOUSE, PALARIVATOOM P.O.,
ERNAKULAM,, PIN - 682025
2025:KER:60337
WA NO. 780 OF 2024
14
2 A. V. VEEBOY
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O. VARATHAPPAN, AYYAMKULANGARA HOUSE, P. J.
ANTONY ROAD, PACHALAM, PIN - 682012
3 T. I. DIXON
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O. IPPU, THOLATH HOUSE, PETER CORREYA ROAD,
PACHALAM P. O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682012
4 M. U. BOBEN
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O. UKKURU, MEKKATTUKULAM HOUSE, PACHALAM P. O.,
ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682012
5 ABDUL MAJEED
AGED 70 YEARS
S/O. K. V. KUNJIKOYA, DALIN HOUSE, LIBERTY LINE,
KALOOR,, PIN - 682018
6 BEENA P. K
AGED 48 YEARS
W/O. SHAJAN, CHERUVATHOOR HOUSE,
PACHALAM P. O., ERNAKULAM,, PIN - 682012
7 P. P. VARGHESE
AGED 68 YEARS
S/O. P. V. PAILY, POONOLY HOUSE,
KANJOOR, KALADY P. O., ERNAKULAM,, PIN - 683574
8 S. M. AKBAR
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O. S. P. MUSTHAFA, THATHANAT PARAMBIL HOUSE,
MARKET ROAD, TRIPUNITHURA,, PIN - 682301
9 SHEENA MOHAN
AGED 51 YEARS
W/O. MOHAN C. I., CHERUVATHOOR HOUSE,
LALSALAM ROAD, PACHALAM P. O.,
ERNAKULAM,, PIN - 682012
2025:KER:60337
WA NO. 780 OF 2024
15
10 CORPORATION OF COCHIN
PARK AVENUE ROAD, MARINE DRIVE, KOCHI,
KERALA, PIN - 682 011,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
11 THE SECRETARY
AGED 50 YEARS
CORPORATION OF COCHIN, PARK AVENUE ROAD, MARINE
DRIVE, KOCHI, KERALA,, PIN - 682011
12 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
CORPORATION OF COCHIN, PARK AVENUE ROAD,
MARINE DRIVE, KOCHI, PIN - 682011
*13 REETHAMMA
AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS, W/O. PAULOSE,
KOLUTHARA HOUSE, THEVARVATTOM MURI,
THAYKKATTUSSERY VILLAGE, POOCHACKAL P. O., PIN -
685558 (DELETED)
*14 EALIKUTTY
AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
D/O. VARGHESE, KOLUTHARA HOUSE,
THEVARVATTOM MURI, THAYKKATTUSSERY VILLAGE,
POOCHACKAL P. O., PIN - 685558 (DELETED)
(R13 & R14 ARE DELETED AS PER ORDER DATED
15/11/24 IN I.A 1/24 IN W.A 812/24.),
15 JOSEPH KOLUTHARA
AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
S/O. VARGHESE, KOLUTHARA HOUSE,
THEVARVATTOM MURI, THAYKKATTUSSERY VILLAGE,
POOCHACKAL P. O.,, PIN - 685558
16 ANTONY KOLUTHARA
AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
S/O. VARGHESE,
KOLUTHARA HOUSE,
THEVARVATTOM MURI, THAYKKATTUSSERY VILLAGE,
POOCHACKAL P. O.,, PIN - 685558
2025:KER:60337
WA NO. 780 OF 2024
16
17 GEORGE KOLUTHARA
AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
S/O. VARGHESE, KOLUTHARA HOUSE,
THEVARVATTOM MURI, THAYKKATTUSSERY VILLAGE,
POOCHACKAL P. O.,, PIN - 685558
18 ADDL.R11.GRACE ANTONY
AGED 68 YEARS,W/O. ANTONY KOULUTHARA ,
THEVARVATTOM MURI, THAYKKATTUSSERY VILLAGE,
POOCHACKAL P.O., PIN 685558 (IMPLEADED AS PER
ORDER DATED 06/02/2024 IN IA 4/2023)
BY ADVS.
SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU
SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH
SMT.ARYA RAGHUNATH
SHRI.KARUKAPADATH WAZIM BABU
SMT.P.LAKSHMI
SMT.AYSHA E.M.
SHRI.ABUASIL A.K.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
10.07.2025, ALONG WITH WA.780/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 08.08.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:60337
WA NO. 780 OF 2024
17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 17TH SRAVANA, 1947
WA NO. 1679 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 11.04.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.23754 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT(S)/3RD PARTIES:
1 JOSE THOMAS PATTARA
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O. THOMAS PATTARA, PATTARA PUTHEN VEEDU,
MUHAMMA P.O, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688525
2 MANJU DEVI KEJARIWAL
AGED 74 YEARS
W/O. KESHAR DEO KEJARIWAL, 36/3003, NARMADA,
AZAD ROAD, KALOOR P.O, KALOOR,ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682017
3 SEEMOL SHAJU
AGED 49 YEARS
W/O. P. P .SHAJU,69/297A PULIKKOTTIL HOUSE,
WELCOME ROAD, AYYAPPANKAVU, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 682018
4 MERCY NELSON
AGED 50 YEARS
W/O. K. P .NELSON, 73/394B, KAKKASERY HOUSE,
GREEN GARDEN, KARSHAKA ROAD, VADUTHALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682023
BY ADVS.
SRI.G.P.SHINOD
SRI.GOVIND PADMANAABHAN
2025:KER:60337
WA NO. 780 OF 2024
18
SHRI.AJIT G ANJARLEKAR
SHRI.ATUL MATHEWS
SMT.GAYATHRI S.B.
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS 1 TO 7 AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 16:
1 V M ABDUL SHUKOOR
AGED 63 YEARS
S/O. V. M. MOOSA, VADAKKEVEETIL HOUSE,
PALARIVATTOM P.O., ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682025
2 A V VEEBOY
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O. VARATHAPPAN, AYYAMKULANGARA HOUSE,
P. J. ANTONY ROAD, PACHALAM., PIN - 682012
3 T. I. DIXON
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O. IPPU, THOLATH HOUSE, PETER CORREYA ROAD,
PACHALAM P. O., ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682012
4 ABDUL MAJEED
AGED 70 YEARS
S/O. K. V. KUNJIKOYA, DALIN HOUSE,
LIBERTY LINE, KALOOR., PIN - 682018
5 BEENA P K
AGED 48 YEARS
W/O. SHAJAN, CHERUVATHOOR HOUSE,
PACHALAM P. O., ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682012
6 S M AKBAR
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O. S. P. MUSTHAFA, THATHANAT PARAMBIL HOUSE,
MARKET ROAD, TRIPUNITHURA., PIN - 682301
7 SHEENA MOHAN
AGED 51 YEARS
W/O. MOHAN C. I., CHERUVATHOOR HOUSE,
LALSALAM ROAD, PACHALAM P. O.,
ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682012
2025:KER:60337
WA NO. 780 OF 2024
19
8 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT., PIN - 695003
9 THE COMMITTEE (CONSTITUTED UNDER SEC.78-A OF THE
KERALA MUNICIPALITY ACT)
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND THE PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL
SELF GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, DISTRICT., PIN - 695003
0 THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER
DEPARTMENT OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING, SWARAJ
BHAVAN, 2ND AND 3RD FLOOR, NANTHANCODU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
DISTRICT., PIN - 695003
11 DIRECTOR GENERAL
FIRE AND SAFETY SERVICES,
FIRE FORCE JUNCTION, PULIMOODU P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, DISTRICT., PIN - 695001
12 DISTRICT FIRE OFFICER
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KADAVANTHRA P.O, KADAVANTHRA,
ERNAKULAM, DISTRICT., PIN - 682020
13 CORPORATION OF COCHIN
PARK AVENUE ROAD, MARINE DRIVE, ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
PIN - 682011
14 THE SECRETARY
CORPORATION OF COCHIN, PARK AVENUE ROAD, MARINE
DRIVE, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA., PIN -
682011
15 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KOCHI CORPORATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KOCHI.,
PIN - 682011
2025:KER:60337
WA NO. 780 OF 2024
20
*16 REETHAMMA (DELETED)
W/O. PAULOSE, KOLUTHARA HOUSE, THEVARVATTOM MURI,
THAYKKATTUSSERY VILLAGE, POOCHACKAL P. O,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT., PIN - 688528
*17 EALIKUTTY (DELETED)
D/O. VARGHESE, KOLUTHARA HOUSE, THEVARVATTOM
MURI, THAYKKATTUSSERY VILLAGE, POOCHACKAL P.O,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688528
RESPONDENT NOS R16 AND R17 DELETED FROM THE PARTY
ARRAY OF W.A 1679/2024 AS PER ORDER DATED
04/12/2024 IN IA NO.2/2024 IN W.A.1679/2024.,
18 JOSEPH KOLUTHARA
S/O. VARGHESE, KOLUTHARA HOUSE, THEVARVATTOM
MURI, THAYKKATTUSSERY VILLAGE, POOCHACKAL P. O.,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688528
19 ANTONY KOLUTHARA
S/O. VARGHESE, KOLUTHARA HOUSE, THEVARVATTOM
MURI, THAYKKATTUSSERY VILLAGE, POOCHACKAL P. O.,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688528
20 GEORGE KOLUTHARA
S/O. VARGHESE, KOLUTHARA HOUSE, THEVARVATTOM
MURI, THAYKKATTUSSERY VILLAGE, POOCHACKAL P. O.,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688528
21 SEBASTIAN KOLUTHARA
S/O. VARGHESE, KOLUTHARA HOUSE, THEVARVATTOM
MURI, THAYKKATTUSSERY VILLAGE, POOCHACKAL P. O.,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688528
22 DAVID P.V
S/O. P.C VARGHESE, PANAKKAL HOUSE, AYYAPANKAVVU
P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682018
23 GRACY ANTONY
AGED 68 YEARS,W/O. ANTONY KOLUTHARA,
THEVARVATTOM MURI, THAYKKATTUSSERY VILLAGE,
POOCHACKAL P.O, PIN - 685558
2025:KER:60337
WA NO. 780 OF 2024
21
BY ADVS.
SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU
SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH
SMT.ARYA RAGHUNATH
SHRI.KARUKAPADATH WAZIM BABU
SMT.P.LAKSHMI
SMT.AYSHA E.M.
SHRI.ABUASIL A.K.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
10.07.2025, ALONG WITH WA.780/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 08.08.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:60337
WA NO. 780 OF 2024
22
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 17TH SRAVANA, 1947
WA NO. 1072 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 11.04.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.5712 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT(S)/3RD PARTIES:
1 JOSE THOMAS PATTARA
AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. THOMAS PATTARA, PATTARA
PUTHEN VEEDU, MOHAMMA P.O, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,
PIN - 688525
2 MANJU DEVI KEJARIWAL
AGED 74 YEARS, W/O. KESHAR DEO KEJARIWAL,
36/3003, NARMADA, AZAD ROAD, KALOOR P.O, KALOOR,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682017
3 SEEMOL SHAJU
AGED 49 YEARS, W/O. P. P .SHAJU,69/297A
PULIKKOTTIL HOUSE, WELCOME ROAD, AYYAPPANKAVU,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682018
4 MERCY NELSON
AGED 50 YEARS
W/O. K. P .NELSON, 73/394B, KAKKASERY HOUSE,
GREEN GARDEN, KARSHAKA ROAD, VADUTHALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682023
BY ADVS.
SRI.G.P.SHINOD
SRI.GOVIND PADMANAABHAN
SHRI.AJIT G ANJARLEKAR
2025:KER:60337
WA NO. 780 OF 2024
23
SHRI.ATUL MATHEWS
SMT.GAYATHRI S.B.
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS 1 TO 9 AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 11:
1 V. M. ABDUL SHUKOOR
AGED 63 YEARS
S/O. V. M. MOOSA, VADAKKEVEETIL HOUSE,
PALARIVATTOM P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682025
2 A. V. VEEBOY
AGED 62 YEARS
S/O. VARATHAPPAN, AYYAMKULANGARA HOUSE,
P. J. ANTONY ROAD, PACHALAM, PIN - 682012
3 T. I. DIXON
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O. IPPU, THOLATH HOUSE, PETER CORREYA ROAD,
PACHALAM P. O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682012
4 M. U. BOBEN
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O. UKKURU, MEKKATTUKULAM HOUSE,
PACHALAM P. O., ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682012
5 ABDUL MAJEED
AGED 70 YEARS,S/O. K. V. KUNJIKOYA, DALIN HOUSE,
LIBERTY LINE, KALOOR,, PIN - 682018
6 BEENA P. K
AGED 48 YEARS, W/O. SHAJAN, CHERUVATHOOR HOUSE,
PACHALAM P. O., ERNAKULAM,, PIN - 682012
7 P. P. VARGHESE
AGED 68 YEARS
S/O. P. V. PAILY, POONOLY HOUSE, KANJOOR,
KALADY P. O., ERNAKULAM,, PIN - 683574
8 S. M. AKBAR
AGED 60 YEARS,S/O. S. P. MUSTHAFA,
THATHANAT PARAMBIL HOUSE,
MARKET ROAD, TRIPUNITHURA,, PIN - 682301
2025:KER:60337
WA NO. 780 OF 2024
24
9 SHEENA MOHAN
AGED 51 YEARS, W/O. MOHAN C. I., CHERUVATHOOR
HOUSE, LALSALAM ROAD, PACHALAM P. O.,
ERNAKULAM,, PIN - 682012
10 CORPORATION OF COCHIN
PARK AVENUE ROAD, MARINE DRIVE, KOCHI, KERALA,
PIN - 682 011, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
11 THE SECRETARY
CORPORATION OF COCHIN, PARK AVENUE ROAD,
MARINE DRIVE, KOCHI, KERALA,, PIN - 682011
12 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
CORPORATION OF COCHIN, PARK AVENUE ROAD,
MARINE DRIVE, KOCHI, PIN - 682011
*13 REETHAMMA
AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
W/O. PAULOSE, KOLUTHARA HOUSE,
THEVARVATTOM MURI, THAYKKATTUSSERY VILLAGE,
POOCHACKAL P. O., PIN - 685558 (DELETED)
*14 EALIKUTTY
AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
D/O. VARGHESE, KOLUTHARA HOUSE,
THEVARVATTOM MURI, THAYKKATTUSSERY VILLAGE,
POOCHACKAL P. O.,, PIN - 685558 (DELETED)
R13 AND R14 ARE DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY OF
W. 1072/2024 AS PER ORDER DATED 4.12.2024IN I.A.
3/2024 IN W.A. 1072/2024
15 JOSEPH KOLUTHARA
AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
S/O. VARGHESE, KOLUTHARA HOUSE,
THEVARVATTOM MURI, THAYKKATTUSSERY VILLAGE,
POOCHACKAL P. O.,, PIN - 685558
16 ANTONY KOLUTHARA
AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
2025:KER:60337
WA NO. 780 OF 2024
25
S/O. VARGHESE, KOLUTHARA HOUSE,
THEVARVATTOM MURI, THAYKKATTUSSERY VILLAGE,
POOCHACKAL P. O.,, PIN - 685558
17 GEORGE KOLUTHARA
AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS,
S/O. VARGHESE, KOLUTHARA HOUSE,
THEVARVATTOM MURI, THAYKKATTUSSERY VILLAGE,
POOCHACKAL P. O.,, PIN - 685558
18 DAVID .P.V
S/O. P.C. VARGHESE, PANAKKAL HOUSE, AYYAPPANKAVU
P.O., KOCHI, PIN - 682018
19 KOLUTHURA BAZAR OWNERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION
BROADWAY, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI,
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY SAJEEV, M.
T, S/O .M. THANKAPPAN., PIN - 682031
20 GRACY ANTONY
AGED 68 YEARS
W/O. ANTONY KOLUTHARA, THEVARVATTOM
MURI,THAYKKATTUSSERY VILLAGE,
POOCHACKAL P.O., PIN - 685558
BY ADVS.
SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU
SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH
SMT.ARYA RAGHUNATH
SHRI.KARUKAPADATH WAZIM BABU
SMT.P.LAKSHMI
SMT.AYSHA E.M.
SHRI.ABUASIL A.K.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON10.07.2025, ALONG WITH WA.780/2024 AND CONNECTED CASES,
THE COURT ON 08.08.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:60337
WA NO. 780 OF 2024
26
JUDGMENT
[WA Nos.780/2024, 683/2024, 684/2024, 812/2024, 1679/2024, 1072/2024] Amit Rawal, J.
1. This order shall dispose of six(6) writ appeals arising out of the common judgment dated 11.04.2024 in W.P.(C)No.5712 of 2023 (first writ petition) and W.P. (C)No.23754 of 2023 (second writ petition). W.A.No.780 of 2024 and W.A.No.684 of 2024 arise out of the decision in W.P.(C)No.23754 of 2023; and W.A.No.683 of 2024 and W.A.No.812 of 2024 arise out of W.P.(C)No.5712 of 2023 whereas W.A.Nos.1072 of 2024 and 1679 of 2024 have been filed by the third parties seeking leave of this Court to challenge the aforesaid judgment, claiming to be the other co-owners who are supporting the respondents, in the original writ petitions/appellants in the other intra court appeals.
2. Facts leading to the filing of the two writ petitions are enumerated hereinbelow:
First writ petition was filed by nine(9) petitioners i.e., 2025:KER:60337 WA NO. 780 OF 2024 27 V.M.Abdul Shukoor and Others against Corporation of Cochin, its Secretary and Assistant Executive Engineer as respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Reethamma, Ealikutty, Joseph Koluthara, Antony Koluthara and George Koluthara as respondent Nos.4 to 8. The reliefs claimed in the aforementioned writ petition were as under:
"i) Call for the records leading to Exhibits P12 and P14;
ii) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Exhibits P12 and P14
iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents 1 to 3 immediately cancel Exhibits P12 & P14;
iv) grant such other reliefs, as this Hon'ble Court shall deem just
v) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular documents."
From perusal of the aforesaid reliefs, two permits have been challenged i.e., Exts.P12 dated 25.05.2022 and P14 building permit dated 26.07.2024.
3. In the second writ petition out of which W.A.No.780 of 2024 and W.A.No.684 of 2024 have arisen, petitioners were same as in the other writ petition whereas 2025:KER:60337 WA NO. 780 OF 2024 28 respondent No.1 to 8 were the official respondents and Nos.9 to 15 were the same persons except one Sebastian Koluthara who was not arrayed as respondent in the other writ petition and the following reliefs were claimed:
I) Call for the records leading to Exhibits P11, P14 and P15;
ii) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Exhibits P11, P14 and P15;
iii) grant such other reliefs, as this Hon'ble Court shall deem just and
iv) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular documents."
Essentially three orders Ext.P11, P14 and P15 have been challenged; Ext.P11 is the order of the Government dated 17.12.2002 passed before issuance of order dated 26.07.2004 which is Ext.P14 in the first writ petition; i.e. the minutes of the meeting of the committee of the Municipal Corporation dated 12.04.2018 which is Ext.R9(e) in the first writ petition; and Ext.P15 permit dated 25.05.2022 which is Ext.P12 in the first writ petition.
4. The writ petitioners claim to be the owners of 2025:KER:60337 WA NO. 780 OF 2024 29 different shop rooms in a building called Koluthara Broadway Bazar alleged to have been constructed on fifty(50) cents of plot in Broadway at Ernakulam. The aforementioned property was originally purchased by one K.P.Varghese of Koluthara family in the name of his two children. A partition deed Ext.P13, in the first writ petition, was executed on 29.03.1983 and aforementioned 50 cents was divided into two. One portion was allotted to Antony Koluthara and his wife Grace Antony and other portion to Sebastian Koluthara. Antony Koluthara and Sebastian Koluthara are sons of K.P.Varghese.
5. Sri.Antony Koluthara assigned his rights over the property in favour of his wife Grace Antony vide assignment document registered as 2698/98 and 4242/98 of S.R.O., Ernakulam.
6. Grace Antony and Sebastian Koluthara entered into a joint venture agreement with a builder namely 'Lamex Builders' for construction of a commercial building in 2025:KER:60337 WA NO. 780 OF 2024 30 the property in question. Revenue records in relation to the property contained the names of all legal heirs of K.P.Varghese. Accordingly, builders submitted an application in the name of all legal heirs/original co-owners, including Sebastian. On 24.11.1998, a building permit was granted for construction of the basement, ground floor and head room. The permit was slightly revised on 22.12.1998 by granting permission for the 1st floor also. These are Exts.R9(a) and R9(b) in the counter affidavit of first writ petition. Both permits were issued in the name of Reethamma and five others, whose names were reflected in the partition deed as original owners of the property. In 2004, a permission for additional construction was sought by submitting an application dated 24.10.2004. The said application was also submitted in the name of all six permit holders though among them, only Sebastian was having the ownership rights over the property. The building permit was issued on 26.07.2004 which was extended upto 25.07.2013 which has been 2025:KER:60337 WA NO. 780 OF 2024 31 challenged in the first writ petition as Ext.P14. Thereafter, David Antony - appellant/respondent No.9 in the first writ petition and No.15 in the second writ petition, submitted an application as per Rule 15 of the Kerala Municipal Building Rules, 1999 which was taken up by the committee on three dates, viz.,16.04.2014, 27.04.2017 and 12.04.2018 and on 22.05.2022 Ext.P12 permit (first writ petition) was issued ascertaining the conditions imposed by the committee were complied with or not as Substantial amount of money was paid towards renewal money owing to direction by the committee.
7. Writ petitioners alleged that none of the persons reflected in the permit had any subsisting right in the absence of the name of original owners. Facilities are lacking in the building. The exemption granted under Rule 5 on 17.12.2002 was not legally sustainable. There was no facility for parking of cars except for twenty six(26). There was misuse of power by the Government while exercising the 2025:KER:60337 WA NO. 780 OF 2024 32 power under Rule 5 of the Kerala Municipal Building Rules. No site plan as noticed by the Chief Town Planner in the meetings of the committee was submitted and yet exemption permit had been granted. Commercial occupancy building requires one parking for every 100 sq. meters of the carpet area.
8. The decision of the committee dated 12.04.2018 under Rule 15A of the KMBR, 1999, was not legally valid and the permit issued after four years on 25.05.2022 was after the expiry of three years from the date of the decision of Rule15A committee i.e., on 12.04.2018. Order of exemption granted by the Government on 17.12.2002 is fatal and there cannot be any delay in challenging the same as it came into effect only when acquired the knowledge of permit dated 25.05.2022. Were not aware of the said order as the conditions stipulated in the order had not been complied with nor any construction was completed giving a vested right to the beneficiaries.
2025:KER:60337 WA NO. 780 OF 2024 33
9. On the other hand, the respondents, who are appellants herein, countered the aforementioned argument by assailing the judgment of Single Bench on the premise that it is an admitted case of the petitioners as borne out from paragraph Nos.10, 11 and 12 of the second writ petition that they were in the knowledge of the construction of two more floors over the already completed three storied building, as it was done with oral assurance that the same would be transferred to the then existing room owners in three storied building in consideration for payment of loan made by them to the bank i.e., the liability created by the original land owners. The existence of the construction, though observed by the bench with regard to having no knowledge, had been admitted in paragraph No.10 of the second writ petition, wherein it has been categorically stated that the structures of second and third floors were constructed by them but since was not in terms of the Municipal Building Rules and on the basis of the approved plan, without obtaining the necessary 2025:KER:60337 WA NO. 780 OF 2024 34 NOC, the said floors remained in disuse whereas the construction of basement, ground floor and first floor was immediately completed after obtaining the building permit in 1998. It was further contended that in paragraph No.12 thereof it was pleaded in order to overcome the delay of almost twenty years, that only few months back from filing of the writ petition, certain influenced people at the helm of administration of the corporation issued a building permit as per the order dated 25.05.2022 to the appellants for constructing five storeys more on the top floor of the original building.
10. The first writ petition was filed laying challenge to the permit dated 26.07.2004 Ext.P14. The original project was of seven storied building and the only difference was that the application was submitted on stage by stage basis whereas the foundation of the structure is capable of holding seven storied building evident from the structural study report dated 14.02.2022 Ext.R9(g). The construction 2025:KER:60337 WA NO. 780 OF 2024 35 as per 26.07.2004 permit could not be completed due to various reasons as the agency entrusted with the construction had abandoned the project and there were litigation on account of certain actions by Sri.Sebastian who was one of the co-owners. The construction came to a stand still and could not be completed. It is on that account second and third floors were treated as unauthorized construction and given numbers accordingly. The project become complete only when fourth and fifth floors are also built and construction of common facilities are completed therein. It was the common decision of the investors authorizing David.P.V to submit an application for invocation of Rule 15A of the KMBR, 1999, and for getting extension.
11. In support of the contentions particularly regarding the delay and acquiescence relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Chairman State Bank of India and Others v. M.J.James [2022 (2) SCC 301], which was a case of a dismissal from service and initiation of 2025:KER:60337 WA NO. 780 OF 2024 36 disciplinary proceedings held long time ago and objection was taken that the affected party had unattended the proceedings for almost nine years and did not pursue the case well within the time and by relying upon the distinction between acquiescence, delay and laches. It was further submitted that doctrine of acquiescence is an equitable doctrine which applies where a party having a right stands by and sees another dealing in a manner inconsistent with that right, despite the fact that the act is in progress which reflects the assent and accord and thereafter, cannot turn around and complain. In literal sense the term 'acquiescence' means a silent assent and tacit consent whereas the delay and laches is also one of the by- product of acquiescence where a question of prejudice, change of position, creation of third party rights or interest on the part of the party seeking relief are the more important and relevant aspects as the delay can always obscure the facts, encourage dubious claims and even prevent fair and just adjudication. Though it is flexible, unlike 2025:KER:60337 WA NO. 780 OF 2024 37 limitation, it destroys the remedy but not the right. But there has to be case of a violation of some fundamental right or non-compliance of directive principles.
12. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel representing the respondents - writ petitioners supported the judgment under challenge on the premise that granting of exemption without the approved site plan in 2004 and subsequent decision of the committee in 2018 and finally permit after a gap of four and half years in 2022 would lead to an irresistible conclusion that Municipal Corporation had been in hand in glove with the builder granting the permission by deviating the norms and procedure prescribed under the KMBR, 1999. In the absence of site plan, the decision of the Municipal Corporation in granting the assent and exemption in exercise of unfettered powers is therefore vexatious in law. There was no intentional delay and laches in challenging the order of 2002 as it came to their knowledge only few months back from filing of the writ petition in 2023 when acquired 2025:KER:60337 WA NO. 780 OF 2024 38 the knowledge of the memo dated 25.5.2022 ie., Ext.P12 in the first writ petition, permitting to extend the term of the construction of the building upto 19.04.2025, but did not deny the construction of two more floors as per paragraph No.10 of the writ petition but in paragraph No.12, stated that the permission of 25.05.2022 was in respect of five storied building. This aspect will be referred to at the time when we render our findings on the respective arguments and material on record by referring to the judgment cited at Bar.
13. In support of the contention relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Tukaram Kana Joshi and Ors. Thr. power of attorney holder v. M.I.D.C. and others [2013 (1) SCC 353] to contend that the doctrine of delay and laches can always come into play but while exercising the discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Court must do it judicially and reasonably and in case it is found that claim is legally sustainable, the delay should always be ignored and condoned. In other words, 2025:KER:60337 WA NO. 780 OF 2024 39 where circumstances justifying the conduct exists and illegality is manifest cannot withstand on the sole ground of laches in order to do substantial justice. The technical considerations should not come in the way particularly when there was no case of any deliberate delay. Municipality failed to notice the structure plan and structure existing as to whether it can withstand the other floors as per the permission granted in the permit dated 25.05.2022.
14. On the contrary, learned counsel for the appellants also relied upon the latest judgment of Supreme Court in Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley and Others [(2024) 4 S.C.R. 506] decided on 18.04.2024 to contend that as per the averments in paragraph No.10 of the writ petition, writ petitioners were aware of all the developments/construction of second and third floor but yet did not challenge only on the premise that since they had settled the dues by entering into an oral agreement with the previous co-owner for allotment. Thereafter, only in 2022 2025:KER:60337 WA NO. 780 OF 2024 40 raked up the cause of action by challenging the order of 26.07.2004 which would tantamount not only acquiescence but give away the right to challenge the same and urged this court for allowing the writ appeals subject to any conditions which this Hon'ble court deem it appropriate by directing the Municipal Corporation to adhere to the existing KMBR, 2019.
15. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper books.
16. Paragraph Nos.10, 11 and 12 of the second writ petition are worth extraction. The same reads as under:
10.After completion of the 3 storied shopping complex, as aforesaid, it was understood, by the purchasers of the undivided share of the land for the purpose of construction of their respective rooms, that the land, on which the building was constructed, was under mortgage with Federal Bank, Main Branch, Ernakulam created by the then land owners before the execution of the Exhibits P3 P4 and similar sale COURT deeds in favour of the prospective owners of the rooms, including the petitioners 1 to 5 and predecessor of the petitioners 6 and 7. In the said scenario, Koluthara Bazar Owners Welfare Association (Reg No.ER-369/2003) was formed by the persons owning the undivided share in the lands in Sy. Nos. 775/1 & 2 and 772/1, 2 & 3 of Ernakulam Village, originally owned 2025:KER:60337 WA NO. 780 OF 2024 41 by Mr. Sebastian Varghese and Grace Antony, and who have constructed the rooms therein forming part of the 3 storied building complex, with basement floor, ground floor and first floor, to protect their interest. Later, on the persuasion of the Association, the erstwhile landowners of the land and the builder, on their behalf, agreed to construct/provide common facilities and amenities originally offered by them and to clear the bank liability.
Later, they also requested the room owners to clear the bank liability to the extent possible to protect the interest and offered to complete the construction of the common facilities and amenities and further agreed to construct two more floors over the already completed three storied building and to transfer the same as well to the then existing room owners in the 3 storied building as consideration for the payment made by them to the bank to clear the liability created by the original land owners. Accordingly, the petitioners and other room owners in the basement, ground and first floors paid substantial amount to the Federal Bank to clear the liability created by the aforementioned original land owners mortgaging the landed property to the bank. Later, the structure of the 2nd and 3rd floors were constructed by them, but as the construction of the 2nd and 3rd floors were not in terms of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules or with or on the basis of approved plan and it was constructed without getting Fire NOC and other statutory clearances, the 2nd and 3rd floors are treated as unauthorized constructions by the Corporation and as such, the occupancy certificate for the same are not given by Kochi Corporation and the 2025:KER:60337 WA NO. 780 OF 2024 42 rooms are also not numbered by the Corporation even now and the said floors are still in disuse. On further enquiry with the Corporation, it was learned that, the permit was issued to undertake the construction of the 2 nd and 3rd floors on the condition inter alia that, fire NOC shall be obtained and lift and additional parking facilities shall be provided etc. However, as such mandatory conditions are not complied with fill this date, the already constructed 2nd and 3rd floors are not numbered and it is remaining as a skeleton as unauthorized structure.
11.As already submitted, the constructions of the basement floor, ground floor and 1 st floor were completed immediately after obtaining building permit in 1998 within a period of one year and those rooms, including that of the petitioners were numbered in 1999-2000 and the Corporation is collecting tax for the same from then. So, the basement floor, ground floor and 1st floor of the building is almost 25 years old and due to lack of proper maintenance and old age there is deterioration for the same. There are cracks in every floor of the building including in its basement floor and ground floor making the further construction dangerous to the occupants of the building and others.
12.Later, it was understood a few months back that, certain persons have influenced the persons in the helm of administration of the 6 respondent Corporation and obtained a Building Permit as per order dated 25/05/2022 of the 8th respondent for constructing 5 stories more on the top of the original building, having basement floor, ground floor and 1st floor. A true copy of the Memo dated 2025:KER:60337 WA NO. 780 OF 2024 43 25/05/2022 issued by the 8th respondent purporting to extend the term of construction of the building up to 19/04/2025 is produced herewith and marked herein after as Exhibit P15. It is respectfully submitted that, the 8th respondent does not have any power or authority to extent any building permit and Exhibit P15 is illegal."
17. On perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs, particularly paragraph No.10, it is evident that the two floors were constructed later on,i.e. four floors; ground floor, first floor, second floor and third floor. Though second and third floors remained unused as per their assertion, though have been allotted numbers, owing to the litigation between the co-owners and builders, cannot be turned around by raking up the cause of action by pleading in paragraph No.12, alleging that the permission on 25.05.2022 was granted on all five floors, particularly the two floors which had already existed and three more floors. The objection regarding the delay has been dealt in last in the judgment under challenge, we deem it appropriate to extract the reasoning assigned while entertaining the writ petition permitting the writ 2025:KER:60337 WA NO. 780 OF 2024 44 petitioners to assail the order/permit issued on 26.07.2004. The same reads as under:
" 34. Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, no period of limitation has been prescribed for filing a writ petition. However absence of such a time limit does not mean that the writ petition could be filed at any time. Courts have consistently held that writ petitions should be filed within a reasonable time after the cause of action arose. Delay and laches are adopted as modes of discretion to decline the exercise of jurisdiction to grant relief. The nature of exercise of the said discretion depends on facts and circumstances of each case. Delay is thus not an absolute impediment but is a factor which can be taken into reckoning by the Court. Factors like the continuity of cause action, the impugned order shocking the judicial conscience, manifest illegality are circumstances that can enable the Court to exercise discretion in favour of the party seeking relief, despite delay. Therefore, no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to when the High Court should refuse to exercise its jurisdiction.
35. However, the discretion must be exercised judiciously and reasonably. If the claim made by the applicant is legally sustainable, the delay need not necessarily deter the Court from issuing an appropriate writ. In other words, where circumstances justify, a manifest illegality cannot be permitted to be perpetrated on the sole ground of delay and laches. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against 2025:KER:60337 WA NO. 780 OF 2024 45 each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side cannot claim to have a vested right in the injustice being done because of a nondeliberate delay. Reference in this context to the decision in Tukaram Kana Joshi and Others v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and Others [(2013) 1 SCC 353] is relevant. 36. To deny relief on the grounds of delay and laches, the principle of acquiescence is also resorted to by courts. In exercising their discretion, the courts would not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. However, since there is no time limit for filing the writ petition, the court has to see whether the delay and latches on the part of party is such as to disentitle him for the relief claimed. One principle that emerges from the various judgments of the Supreme Court is that the claimant must be aware of the impugned order, and he must have slept over his rights. Yet another principle that can be culled out is, if the party in whose favour the impugned order has been issued had done something that changed his position, then delay can defeat the claim.
37. Notwithstanding the above principles, a reasonable time is available to challenge the order. What is reasonable depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Courts have always regarded the date of knowledge as the date when the period of limitation starts to run. Otherwise, an order, if obtained behind the back of a person, would work out injustice and prejudice to persons affected by the said order. Thus, the term 'reasonable time' will take colour from the contextual 2025:KER:60337 WA NO. 780 OF 2024 46 settings. When an order unknown to all except a few, comes to the notice of a third party who is affected by the order, the limitation should generally start from the date of knowledge.
38. In the instant case, one of the impugned orders (Ext.P11) is dated 17-12-2002. The petitioner asserts that they were unaware of it, and there is nothing to indicate to the contrary. The order is patently and manifestly illegal, as already held in the preceding paragraphs of this judgment. The conditions stipulated in the order have also not been complied with nor has the construction been completed to give a vested right to the beneficiaries of the order. The entire four floors permitted under the exemption have not been constructed as well. Hence, this Court is of the firm view that there is no delay in challenging Ext.P11, sufficient enough to refuse the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."
18. Learned Single judge failed to notice that the permission was granted in favour of respondent No.5 Ealikutty in the first writ petition and others to construct second to fifth floors over the existing basement, ground floor and first floor, on 26.07.2004, and out of that the appellants had already constructed two storeys though concededly they are in disuse. The aforementioned permit dated 26.07.2004 2025:KER:60337 WA NO. 780 OF 2024 47 was renewed from 26.07.2007 to 25.07.2010 and then 26.06.2010 to 25.07.2013 without any challenge in both the writ petitions.
19. Since there was a liability created by Sebastian, which brought the project to a stand still, he sold his rights over the property to various persons with right to own the portions of the building to be completed. Similarly Grace Antony had also transferred the portions of undivided shares to the third parties. These averments have not been refuted in any of the affidavits filed by the writ petitioners much less the partition deed. The sale deeds in favour of the writ petitioners would show that the sale was in their favour and all the occupants, subject to the condition that the right to construct the remaining portion of the building as per the approved plans vested with the vendors and their rights to sell the remaining undivided shares with a right to construct the remaining portion was reserved. This aspect has totally been ignored while entertaining the writ petition.
2025:KER:60337 WA NO. 780 OF 2024 48
20. It is also a matter of record that Grace Antony along with investors had decided to go with the construction clearing all the liabilities incurred by Sebastian, but there was a hindrance, as the building permit dated 26.07.2004 which was renewed from time to time had expired and after the public litigation, filed earlier, was over the matter was taken up by the committee and the committee in a decision dated 12.04.2018 Ext.P14 in the second writ petition, granted the exemption.
21. The submissions of the respondents - writ petitioners that the order dated 12.04.2004 granting exemption clearly reveals that there was no approved site plan on the record, but, despite that the permission was granted and much less on the basis of the remarks of the town planner, also do not merit acceptance as., for the reason, that this Court had on 01.07.2025 passed the order directing the corporation to show whether the site plan was there and if yes, whether it conforms the structural 2025:KER:60337 WA NO. 780 OF 2024 49 requirement. In pursuance of the said order, learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation had placed on record an affidavit along with the approved site plan to show that site plan was submitted by the respondents and had been approved, the contents of the affidavit along with the approved site plan was also read out in the presence of learned counsel representing both the parties. This aspect was not considered in correct perspective while dealing with the averments in the writ petitions much less even without asking for the Municipal Corporation as has been done by this Court.
22. The doctrine of delay and laches could not, in isolation have been examined by the Single judge by overruling the objection of delay but doctrine of acquiescence was also required to be applied as held by the Supreme Court in paragraph Nos.29 to 31 of Chairman, State Bank of India and Others v. M.J.James (Civil Appeal No.8223 of 2009). The same reads as under:
29. Before proceeding further, it is important to clarify 2025:KER:60337 WA NO. 780 OF 2024 50 distinction between 'acquiescence' and 'delay and laches'.
Doctrine of acquiescence is an equitable doctrine which applies when a party having a right stands by and sees another dealing in a manner inconsistent with that right, while the act is in progress and after violation is completed, which conduct reflects his assent or accord. He cannot afterwards complain. In literal sense, the term acquiescence means silent assent, tacit consent, concurrence, or acceptance, which denotes conduct that is evidence of an intention of a party to abandon an equitable right and also to denote conduct from which another party will be justified in inferring such an intention. Acquiescence can be either direct with full knowledge and express approbation, or indirect where a person having the right to set aside the action stands by and sees another dealing in a manner inconsistent with that right and inspite of the infringement takes no action mirroring acceptance. However, acquiescence will not apply if lapse of time is of no importance or consequence.
30. Laches unlike limitation is flexible. However, both limitation and laches destroy the remedy but not the right. Laches like acquiescence is based upon equitable considerations, but laches unlike acquiescence imports even simple passivity. On the other hand, acquiescence implies active assent and is based upon the rule of estoppel in pais. As a form of estoppel, it bars a party afterwards from complaining of the violation of the right. Even indirect acquiescence implies almost active consent, which is not to be inferred by mere silence or inaction 2025:KER:60337 WA NO. 780 OF 2024 51 which is involved in laches. Acquiescence in this manner is quite distinct from delay. Acquiescence virtually destroys the right of the person. Given the aforesaid legal position, inactive acquiescence on the part of the respondent can be inferred till the filing of the appeal, and not for the period post filing of the appeal. Nevertheless, this acquiescence being in the nature of estoppel bars the respondent from claiming violation of the right of fair representation.
31. The questions of prejudice, change of position, creation of third-party rights or interests on the part of the party seeking relief are important and relevant aspects as delay may obscure facts, encourage 21 Refer Footnote dubious claims, and may prevent fair and just adjudication. Often, relevant and material evidence go missing or are not traceable causing prejudice to the opposite party. It is, therefore, necessary for the court to consciously examine whether a party has chosen to sit over the matter and has woken up to gain any advantage and benefit, which aspects have been noticed in M/s Dehri Rohtas Light Rly.Co. Ltd. v. District Board, Bhojpur and Others and State of Maharashtra v. Digambar. These facets, when proven, must be factored and balanced, even when there is delay and laches on the part of the authorities. These have bearing on grant and withholding of relief. Therefore, we have factored in the aspect of prejudice to the appellants in view of the relief granted in the impugned judgment.
2025:KER:60337 WA NO. 780 OF 2024 52 Thus the judgment cited by the respondents - writ petitioners in Tukaram Kana Joshi will not be applicable.
23. It is settled law that the authority should not grant the exemption or recommend the construction which is against the statute but the fact remains that no provision of rules have been pointed out to show the violation in granting the permission for construction as, originally the permit was issued as per the decision of the committee dated 17.12.2002 and first permit dated 26.07.2004 was with respect to the permission to construct five storyes and the first permit from time to time was renewed i.e. on 26.07.2007 to 25.07.2010 and 26.06.2010 to 25.07.2013 without any demur.
24. Rule 15A of the Kerala Municipality Rules, 1999 produced hereinbelow deals with extension of renewal of building permit:
15A. Extension and renewal of period of permits.-
(1) A development permit or a building permit issued under these rules shall be valid for three years from the date of issue.
(2) The Secretary shall, on application submitted within 2025:KER:60337 WA NO. 780 OF 2024 53 the valid period of the permit, grant extension twice, for further periods of three years each.
(3) The fee for extension of period of permits shall be ten percent of the development permit fee or building permit fee as the case may be, in force at the time of granting extension.
(4) The Secretary shall, on application submitted within one year of the expiry of the permit, grant renewal, once, for a period of three years.
(5) The fee for renewal of permits shall be fifty per cent of the development permit fee or building permit fee as the case may be, in force at the time of renewal. (6) The application for extension or renewal of a development permit or a building permit shall be submitted in white paper either typed or written in ink, specifying the name and address of the applicant, the number and date of issue of the permit, the stage of development or construction, if already commenced. (7) The application shall be affixed with necessary court fee stamp and shall contain the original of the permit and approved plan sought to be extended or renewed (8) The development work or construction work shall be commenced and completed within the valid period of the permit. Note. - Non commencement of any work within the period specified, if any, in a permit issued before the commencement of these rules shall not be considered as a ban for extension or renewal of permit. (9) A development permit or a building permit issued before or after the commencement of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 or these rules or under 2025:KER:60337 WA NO. 780 OF 2024 54 the Kerala Building Rules, 1984 including that under the orders of Government or District Collector granting exemption from rule provisions, shall be extended or renewed, on proper application, on like terms and for like periods as a permit issued under these rules. (10)In case the period of validity stipulated in permit issued before the commencement of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 is different from that stipulated in sub rule (1), then the extension or renewal of the permit shall be granted in such a way that the total valid period of the permit shall not exceed nine years. (11)The application for extension or renewal of a development permit or a building permit shall be signed and submitted by the original owner of the permit or his legal heir to whom the site devolves or legally authorized representative and in case the plot concerned has been transferred by the original owner, the transferee or his legally authorized representative . Provided that if the plot or a part of the plot concerned has been transferred, the application for extension or renewal of permit shall not be accepted and acted upon until provisions of rule 21 has been fully complied with."
25. The period of nine years cannot be calculated from 2004 but has to be from the last renewal date in 2013. Latest permission dated 22.05.2022 came to be issued considering the fact that already an exemption had been 2025:KER:60337 WA NO. 780 OF 2024 55 granted as per the decision dated 17.12.2002 followed by the permit on 26.07.2004 for five stories. Meaning thereby that the foundation of the building and the structure plan as submitted were found to be in order. As far as the other permissions of setting up of lift and other amenities like toilet and NOC from the fire, in our considered view, is a sine qua non considering the height of the building that the Municipal Corporation had already imposed the condition in the permit issued on 22.05.2022.
26. Learned Senior counsel Sri.R.Lakshmi Narayan assisted by Sri.Navaneeth.D.Pai, on instructions from his client submitted at bar that whatever the amenities and facilities which are required shall be provided for raising of the construction.
27. The entire genesis had been on the premise that there was no approved site plan on record and emphatically relied upon the proceedings dated 12.04.2018, but in view of the observation noticed above, the said findings 2025:KER:60337 WA NO. 780 OF 2024 56 are totally off the record and therefore, the entire judgment cannot be permitted to stand in the way of appellants going ahead with the construction, of course subject to the compliance of structural stability to be ensured as indicated in the permission dated 25.05.2022 and other conditions like solid and liquid waste management, arrangement of rain water harvesting, sewerage treatment plant, fire NOC, Lift and fee for renewal of permit as indicated in the order dated 12.04.2018.
28. Accordingly, we allow all the intra court appeals particularly in view of the fact that the other shop keepers are supporting the co-owners as per W.A.No.1072 of 2024 and W.A.No.1679 of 2024. Judgment of Single Bench is set aside and the orders dated 17.12.2002, 26.07.2004, 12.04.2018 and 25.05.2022 impugned in the writ petitions are upheld.
29. At this stage, learned Senior Counsel submitted that during the pendency of the matter before this 2025:KER:60337 WA NO. 780 OF 2024 57 Court, the validity of the permit had expired. Since this Court had upheld the order dated 25.05.2022, we deem it appropriate to direct the Municipality to condone the period spent in the litigation for the purpose of renewing the permit.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL JUDGE Sd/-
P. V. BALAKRISHNAN JUDGE nak 2025:KER:60337 WA NO. 780 OF 2024 58 APPENDIX OF WA 683/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS ENGLISH TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE GENERAL TRANSLATION OF BODY MEETING ON 26/10/22 OF THE EXHIBIT R 9 ( h ) KOLUTHARA BAZAR OWNERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION 2025:KER:60337 WA NO. 780 OF 2024 59 APPENDIX OF WA 684/2024 RESPONDENT ANNEXURES TRANSLATION OF The English translation of Exhibit P.11 EXHIBIT P11 which is the Government Order No. 3527/02/LSG dated 17.12.2002 2025:KER:60337 WA NO. 780 OF 2024 60 APPENDIX OF WA 812/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Translation of TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P13 Exhibit P13 Translation of TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P14 Exhibit P14 2025:KER:60337 WA NO. 780 OF 2024 61 APPENDIX OF WA 780/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS English Translation of ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P 10 Exhibit P 10 English Translation of ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT P 11 Exhibit P 11