[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Nishan Muhammed vs State Of Kerala on 8 January, 2026
W.A No.2737 of 2025 1
2026:KER:854
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHNSON JOHN
THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 18TH POUSHA, 1947
WA NO. 2737 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.09.2025 IN WP(C)
NO.35074 OF 2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ORDER IN RP NO.1401 OF 2025 IN WP(C) NO.35074 OF 2025
DATED 05-11-2025 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
NISHAN MUHAMMED, AGED 45 YEARS,
S/O M. M. NIAS, TRINITY WORLD, NEPTUNE 1 H,
CSEZ P.O, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 037.
BY ADVS.SMT.NIDHI ABRAHAM
SHRI.ABRAHAM VARGHESE E.M.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.
W.A No.2737 of 2025 2
2026:KER:854
2 THE MUNICIPAL SECRETARY,
THRIKKAKARA MUNICIPALITY,
THRIKKAKARA P. O, THRIKKAKARA,
PIN - 682 030.
3 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
ENGINEERING DIVISION, THRIKKAKARA MUNICIPALITY,
THRIKKAKARA P. O., THRIKKAKARA, PIN - 682 030.
4 TRINITY WORLD APARTMENT OWNERS ASSOCIATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TRINITY WORLD
APARTMENT COMPLEX, CSEZ P. O. , KAKKANAD,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 037.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.VINODKUMAR
SMT.PARVATHI VENUGOPAL
SMT.T.J.MARIA GORETTI
SHRI.HARISHANKAR R FOR R4
SHRI.VIMALKUMAR A.
SHRI.APPU AJITH
SMT.M.J.SAJITHA
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. T.K.VIPINDAS, SR GP FOR R1,
SRI.S.JAMAL, SC FOR R2 AND R3
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.A No.2737 of 2025 3
2026:KER:854
K.NATARAJAN & JOHNSON JOHN, JJ.
-----------------------------------------------
W.A No.2737 of 2025
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 8th day of January, 2026.
K.NATARAJAN, J.
J U D G M E N T
This Writ Appeal is filed by the writ
petitioner for setting aside the judgment and
order passed by the learned single Judge of this
Court in W.P(C) No.35074 of 2025 dated 25-09-2025
and Review Petition No. 1401 of 2025 dated 05-11-
2025.
2. We have heard the arguments of Ms.Nidhi
Abraham, learned counsel for the appellant,
Sri.T.K.Vipindas, learned Senior Government
Pleader for the first respondent, Sri.S.Jamal,
learned Standing Counsel for second and third
2026:KER:854
respondents and Sri.Harishankar.R, learned
counsel for the fourth respondent.
3. The case of the appellant/writ petitioner
is that the 4th respondent is said to have
violated the bye-law of the construction and he
filed a complaint, a proceedings has been
initiated against the 4 th respondent by the 2nd
respondent Municipality. A final order is said to
be passed, which came to be challenged before the
Local Self Government Institutions,
Thiruvananthapuram ('Tribunal' for short) under
Section 509(6) of Kerala Municipality Act, ('KM
Act' for short).
4. The Tribunal allowed the appeal and set
aside the order passed by the Municipality and
directed the Municipality to initiate fresh
proceedings under Section 406 of the KM Act.
2026:KER:854
Aggrieved by the said order, the writ petitioner
approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.35074
of 2025.
5. Initially, the learned Single Judge of
this Court dismissed the writ petition holding
that the writ petitioner ought to have approached
the Tribunal for appropriate modification or
execution of its order. Subsequently, the writ
petitioner filed Review Petition No.1401 of 2025,
contending that there was an error apparent on
the face of the record of the judgment in W.P(C)
No.35074 of 2025.
6. The learned Single Judge, after hearing
the arguments of the learned counsel for the
review petitioner/appellant herein, by order
dated 05-11-2025, reviewed its judgment dated
25.09.2025 and ordered that the observation in
2026:KER:854
paragraph 2 of the judgment dated 25.09.2025 that
'the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal filed by
the fourth respondent', should be read as 'the
Tribunal has disposed of the appeal by directing
the second respondent Municipality to initiate
fresh proceedings under Section 406 of the Kerala
Municipality Act against the 4th respondent, if
the alleged violation still exists'.
7. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the writ
petitioner filed this Writ Appeal. Learned
counsel for the appellant has contended that in
spite of the order passed by the Tribunal and
after the dismissal of the Writ petition by the
learned Single Judge, the second respondent has
not issued any notice as per Section 406 (1) of
the KM Act and the construction is already
completed; but there is no order for demolition.
2026:KER:854
8. Learned counsel appearing for respondent
Nos.2 and 3 submits that the very appeal itself
is not maintainable and has become infructuous
and no order was passed by the Tribunal for
demolition and other acts. The appeal filed by
the 4th respondent before the Tribunal has been
allowed by setting aside the order of the second
respondent Municipality and the matter is
remitted back for fresh consideration.
Thereafter, the second respondent already issued
notice on 24-11-2025 and the matter had been
heard on 30-12-2025. The matter is pending before
the second respondent Municipality for final
consideration. Hence at this stage, Court cannot
interfere with the order.
9. Upon hearing the arguments and perusing
the records, we find that it is not in dispute
2026:KER:854
that the very same petitioner approached the
learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ
petition for issuing a direction to the second
respondent for fixing the time limit for
demolition. The learned Single Judge previously
dismissed the writ petition by directing the
petitioner to approach the same Tribunal for its
execution or modification of its order. But
later, it was reviewed by the learned Single
Judge on the ground that the appeal has not been
dismissed by the Tribunal; but it was disposed of
and remitted back the matter for fresh
consideration under Section 406(3) of KM Act.
Though the petitioner approached the learned
Single Judge directing the second respondent to
act upon the order under appeal within a time
bound manner, but it came to be dismissed under
2026:KER:854
the guise that the appeal was dismissed. But
later, the order was reviewed and stated the
appeal has been disposed of.
10. Subsequently, when the matter is remitted
back, there is no question of demolition at this
stage, until the second respondent Municipality
finally heard both the appellant as well as the
respondent No.4 and passes the final order for
the purpose of demolition. Such being the case,
we are of the view that the learned Single Judge
rightly dismissed the petition. We do not find
any ground to interfere with the impugned
judgment. In fact, the appeal filed by respondent
No.4 has been allowed by the Tribunal and
remitted back, and as per the submission made by
the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3,
the matter has been heard by the 2nd respondent-
2026:KER:854
Municipality on 30-12-2025 and the matter is
pending only for passing final order.
11. Such being the case, we are of the view
that the second respondent is likely to pass
final order on the direction of the appellate
authority. Hence the question of issuing a
direction by the Single Judge or by the Division
Bench does not arise. The appeal is devoid of any
merit and is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
K. NATARAJAN,
JUDGE
Sd/-
JOHNSON JOHN,
JUDGE
amk
