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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
