Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court

Amendments to KPBR 2019 Ensure Compliance in Church Construction: Kerala High Court Dismisses Challenges

22 February 2025 1:12 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


Subheadline: High Court emphasizes validity of permissions granted under revised building rules, dismissing multiple petitions against new church construction.

The Kerala High Court, presided over by Justice T.R. Ravi, has dismissed a series of writ petitions challenging the permissions granted for the construction of a new church in Thrissur. The petitioners questioned the validity and adherence to statutory requirements under the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules (KPBR) 2011 and 2019, specifically the necessity of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the District Collector. The court upheld the permissions, referencing recent amendments to the KPBR which removed the need for such NOCs.

The case revolved around permissions granted for constructing a new church by the Government of Kerala and local self-government bodies. Petitioners, including property owners adjacent to the proposed church site, argued that these permissions violated the KPBR 2011 and were granted without the required NOC from the District Collector. They also contended that subsequent amendments to KPBR 2019, which removed the NOC requirement, should not retroactively validate previously non-compliant permissions.

Application of Amendments – Retroactive Application:
The court focused on the retroactive application of amendments to KPBR 2019, which replaced KPBR 2011 and came into force on November 8, 2019. The amendments abolished the necessity for an NOC from the District Collector for religious building constructions, delegating the responsibility to the Panchayat. Justice T.R. Ravi noted that these changes were intended to streamline the permission process and minimize bureaucratic delays.

Judicial Discretion under Article 226:
The court deliberated the appropriateness of exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226, given the statutory amendments. It concluded that there was no need for judicial interference, as the amendments addressed procedural lapses and ensured compliance with current legal requirements.

Credibility of Initial Permissions and Subsequent Amendments:
The court recognized that while initial permissions granted under KPBR 2011 may have lacked adherence to statutory requirements, the amendments in KPBR 2019 rectified these deficiencies. Justice T.R. Ravi emphasized, “The amendments to KPBR 2019 apply to pending permissions, making the new church construction compliant with current legal requirements.”

Justice T.R. Ravi stated, “The discretion under Article 226 shall not be exercised in cases where no purpose will be served by interfering with the impugned orders. The amendments to KPBR 2019 were aimed at reducing bureaucratic delays and ensuring that construction permissions are granted in a timely manner, in accordance with streamlined legal processes.”

The Kerala High Court’s dismissal of the writ petitions reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to uphold legal amendments aimed at simplifying administrative procedures. By affirming the permissions granted for the church’s construction under KPBR 2019, the judgment underscores the importance of current legal frameworks in ensuring compliance and streamlining bureaucratic processes. This decision is expected to influence future cases regarding the construction of religious buildings, promoting a more efficient and transparent permission system.

Date of Decision: July 19, 2024
 

Latest Legal News