THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: The Supreme Court has ordered the city corporation to take decisive action against a commercial building that was constructed in violation of civic regulations. The court also dismissed an appeal from G. Mohandas, a Thiruvananthapuram building owner, who sought to overturn criminal proceedings regarding the building’s alleged illegal construction. The bench, featuring Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, upheld a prior Kerala High Court ruling from January 16, 2024, which declined to intervene in the matter.
Prosecutors allege that Mohandas acquired a renovation permit under false pretenses and used it to demolish an existing structure and erect a new commercial complex in a restricted area. The permit was only for interior modifications and did not allow for demolition or new construction. Following a complaint from businessman Biju Ramesh, a vigilance investigation was launched, leading to an FIR being filed in 2009. The inquiry revealed that Mohandas, in collusion with municipal officials and an architect, disregarded legal stipulations and continued construction despite a cease-and-desist order issued in November 2006.
Mohandas contended that the original building collapsed due to heavy rainfall, necessitating its reconstruction. He further alleged that the municipal corporation had agreed to regularize the new construction upon the payment of a compounding fee, claiming that similar charges against the architect were previously dismissed by the high court. However, the Supreme Court rejected these assertions, stating that Mohandas acted in concert with municipal officials to create an appearance of legality and that efforts to regularize the building did not absolve him of criminal responsibility.
The court noted that the architect’s involvement was limited to design preparation and did not include active participation in the conspiracy, rendering Mohandas’s call for equal treatment unwarranted. The bench instructed relevant authorities to address the illegal construction and affirmed that the charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC were justified.
Concluding that the appeal was without merit, the court found no grounds for questioning the High Court’s ruling.
