Supreme Court Upholds Criminal Proceedings Over Unauthorised Commercial Construction; High Court Order Affirmed

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard an appeal under Article 136 challenging the Kerala High Court’s dismissal of a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC. The appeal arose from allegations that a building owner procured renovation permission and, in conspiracy with municipal officials, raised a four‑storeyed commercial structure in a prohibited zone, attracting charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B IPC.

The Court affirmed the High Court’s order and dismissed the appeal, holding that the allegations disclosed prima facie criminality and justified continuation of prosecution. The judges noted that the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999, did not require permission for mere alterations, renovations or internal changes and that the permit was used as a “precursor to the fraudulent design” to raise commercial construction in a prohibited zone. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “It was not disputed and is also evident from the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999, that there is no requirement whatsoever for seeking permission to make alterations, renovations, or internal changes in an existing building. Despite that, the appellant acted in conspiracy with officials of the Municipal Corporation and procured such permission, which was nothing but a precursor to the fraudulent design of raising construction of a commercial structure in a prohibited zone under the garb of the renovation permission.” The bench further recorded that the appellant acted “in sheer defiance of the stop memo” issued by the Vigilance Department and that “the necessary ingredients of the offences alleged are clearly established from the allegations set out in the prosecution’s case.” The Court directed concerned authorities to take suitable action against the illegal construction uninfluenced by extraneous circumstances, and dismissed the special leave petition as devoid of merit.

Background

The appellant, owner of a building in Vanchiyoor Village, Thiruvananthapuram, faced a Vigilance inquiry and subsequent FIR (VC No. 3 of 2009) after a complaint alleged that he, in conspiracy with officials of the Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation and an architect, demolished an existing structure and constructed a four‑storeyed commercial building without required permissions. The Vigilance and Anti‑Corruption Bureau inspected the site in January 2007; the enquiry report and sanction led to charges under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B IPC. The Investigating Officer recorded that no permission was statutorily required for internal renovations, and that the disputed location was in a non‑commercial zone where commercial construction was prohibited. A stop memo dated 27 November 2006 was issued, but construction allegedly continued.

Before the trial court, the appellant contended that the original structure had collapsed in torrential rainfall and that the new construction was a bona fide rebuilding followed by an application for regularisation and compounding. The architect (accused No. 7) had earlier succeeded in quashing proceedings against him in the High Court on distinct grounds. The appellant sought parity. The High Court, however, found the factual matrix and the Vigilance findings sufficient to dismiss the Section 482 petition. The trial court rejected the appellant’s Section 239 CrPC application and directed framing of charges, and the Special Judge proceeded accordingly. The Supreme Court found no infirmity in the High Court’s order, emphasised that the architect’s position was factually distinguishable, and left the criminal proceedings to continue. The Court also instructed authorities to proceed against the unauthorised construction as per law. The appeal was dismissed and pending applications were disposed of.

Case No.: 2025 INSC 854 Case Title: G. Mohandas v. State of Kerala & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Shri R. Basant, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Shri P.V. Dinesh, Senior Counsel