Kerala High Court
Nalini.P vs The Secretary, Kanhangad Municipality on 25 July, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:54885
WP(C) NO. 34690 OF 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 3RD SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 34690 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
NALINI.P.,
AGED 64 YEARS
PADINJATTEN HOUSE, KAVUMPALLA, BALLA.P.O, KASARGOD
DISTRICT, PIN - 671531
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.S.BINU
SMT.K.SEENA
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE SECRETARY, KANHANGAD MUNICIPALITY,
KANHANGAD.P.O, KASARGOD DISTRICT, PIN - 671315
2 KANHANGAD MUNCIPALITY,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KANHANGAD.P.O, KASARGOD
DISTRICT, PIN - 671515
SRI ARUNKUMAR, STANDING COUNSEL
GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. DEEPA V.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 25.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:54885
WP(C) NO. 34690 OF 2023
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 25th day of July, 2025 The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P3 order and direct the respondents to issue building permit to the petitioner to construct a residential-cum-commercial building as per Ext.P2 plan.
2. The petitioner is the owner in possession of the property covered under Ext.P1 land tax receipt and situated within the 2nd respondent Municipality. The petitioner had submitted Ext.P2 application for a building permit to construct a residential-cum- commercial building in the above property. But, by the impugned Ext.P3 order, the 1st respondent has rejected Ext.P2 application. Aggrieved by Ext.P3 order, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P4 appeal before the Municipal Council of the 2nd respondent Municipality.
2025:KER:54885 WP(C) NO. 34690 OF 2023 3 But, Ext.P4 appeal has not been considered till date. Hence, the writ petition.
3. In the statement filed by the respondents, it is inter alia contended that in the site inspection conducted in the petitioner's property, it was found that the proposed building has a plinth area of 4046 M 2. The property is near the trenching ground for which the approval of the Council and Health Standing Committee of the Municipality is required. Accordingly, the matter was placed before the Municipal Council, but it was decided not to grant permission to the petitioner, since the proposed construction is within 150 meters from the trenching ground. Ext.P4 appeal is not maintainable before the Municipal Council. Instead, the same has to be filed before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions (Tribunal, for short). Hence, the writ petition may be dismissed.
4. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner and 2025:KER:54885 WP(C) NO. 34690 OF 2023 4 the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner had erroneously preferred the appeal before the Municipal Council on 25.11.2022. Subsequently he filed the writ petition on 17.10.2023. The petitioner is apprehensive that the Tribunal may not condone the delay. Therefore, this Court may entertain this writ petition.
6. Indisputably, an order rejecting an application for building permit is appealable before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institution constituted under Section 271 S of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.
7. In Udayan Vasudevan v. District Collector, TVM [2025 (2) KHC 103], this Court has categorically held that there is no legal prohibition in the Tribunal considering an application to condone the delay in filing an appeal on its merits.
8. In view of the fact that the petitioner has an 2025:KER:54885 WP(C) NO. 34690 OF 2023 5 alternative statutory remedy and there are no extraordinary circumstances to entertain this writ petition, I dismiss the writ petition, but by reserving the right of the petitioner to workout his statutory remedies in accordance with law. It would be upto the petitioner to file an appeal along with an application to condone the delay and bring it to the notice of the Tribunal that she was bona fide prosecuting the appeal before the Municipal Council on the mistaken belief that the Municipal Council was the competent appellate authority and after that, the petitioner is bona fide prosecuting the writ petition before this Court from 17.10.2023 onwards. If the petitioner files an appeal along with a delay petition before the Tribunal within four weeks from today, the Tribunal by considering that the petitioner was bona fide prosecuting Ext.P4 appeal and the writ petition, and further the law laid down by this Court in Udayan Vasudevan's case(supra), shall condone the 2025:KER:54885 WP(C) NO. 34690 OF 2023 6 delay on its merits and consider the appeal in accordance with law.
SD/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE rmm/25/7/2025 2025:KER:54885 WP(C) NO. 34690 OF 2023 7 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 34690/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DATED 02.08.2023 ISSUED FROM THE BALLA VILLAGE OFFICE TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P2 THE COPY OF THE PLAN AND DETAILS OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING Exhibit P3 THE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.11.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT Exhibit P4 THE COPY OF THE WRITTEN REQUEST (APPEAL) SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 25.11.2022 Exhibit P5 COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER ISSUED BY THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, KANHANGAD MUNICIPALITY DATED 25.08.2023 THROUGH RTI ACT Exhibit P6 COPY OF THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE KANHANGAD MUNICIPALITY STEERING COMMITTEE DATED 06.12.2022 OBTAINED THROUGH RTI ACT