Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Kerala · body

2025 DAILYLAW 7983 (KER)

RENEESH ASHRAF, v. THE ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPALITY,

WA/1083/2023 · 2025-04-02

Nitin Jamdar, S Manu

Writ Petition (Civil)body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:KER:29531 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NITIN JAMDAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 12TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WA NO.1083 OF 2023 JUDGMENT DATED 8.4.2021 IN WP(C) NO.19427 OF 2014 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA --------------- APPELLANT/PETITIONER :- RENEESH ASHRAF, AGED 32 YEARS S/O.V.M.ASHRAF, VALIYAKATH HOUSE, KARUKAMADU POST, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER V.A.BASHEER, S/O.V.M.AHAMMED, AGED 52 YEARS, VELIAZHATH HOUSE, THAJ VILLA, ARYAPADAM LANE, LFC ROAD, KALOOR, COCHIN-17. BY ADV V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :- 1 THE ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688 001. 2 THE SECRETARY, ALAPPUZHA MIUNICIPALITY, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688 001. BY ADV R.AZAD BABU THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WA No.1083 of 2023 -: 2 :- 2025:KER:29531 JUDGMENT Dated this the 2 nd day of April, 2025 Nitin Jamdar, C.J. Heard Mr. V. N. Ramesan Nambisan, learned counsel for the Appellant/Original Petitioner. 2. The learned counsel for the Appellant, after arguing for some time, on instructions, states that the appeal be disposed of confirming the opportunity granted by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 8 of the impugned judgment dated 8 April 2021, which reads thus :- “8. Accordingly, the Petitioner is granted liberty to approach the statutory authority seeking regularisation of the unauthorised constructions carried out by filing suitable application within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, and if any such application is filed, it shall be considered and finalised by the statutory authority under law, at the earliest and at any rate within a further period of three months from the date of receipt of the application. However, I make it clear that if the Petitioner is not making any application, the Respondent Municipality would be at liberty to implement the order directing the Petitioner to remove the unauthorised construction. Till the directions as above are complied with, the interim order granted by this Court against the implementation of the coercive order would continue to be in force.” WA No.1083 of 2023 -: 3 :- 2025:KER:29531 3. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. The time of three months granted by the learned Single Judge will commence from today. Sd/- NITIN JAMDAR CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- S. MANU JUDGE Jvt/2.4.2025