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
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
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
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
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
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
