Rejecting Plea To Quash Corruption Case, Supreme Court Directs Demolition Of Illegal Construction

The Supreme Court today (July 15) refused to quash criminal case against the Kerala based builder for raising a commercial building in a prohibited zone under the guise of “internal renovation”, upon obtaining permit from the municipal officials by paying bribery.

The bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta upheld the Kerala High Court's decision, which had dismissed the Appellant's quashing petition seeking to quash proceedings for criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC and corruption under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The Court further directed the officials to take appropriate steps against the illegal construction built by the Appellant under the guise of fradulant permit.

"We direct that the concerned authorities shall be under an obligation to take suitable action against the illegal construction raised by the appellant, uninfluenced by any extraneous circumstances.", the court ordered, affirming the High Court's decision.

At the core of the controversy was the construction of a four-storey commercial complex in violation of zoning regulations by the Appellant-G. Mohandas. Although internal renovations do not require municipal approval under the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999, the appellant obtained a permit falsely invoking this category. He later demolished the existing structure and raised a new building in a prohibited commercial zone, prompting vigilance authorities to issue a stop memo in November 2006 which the appellant willfully ignored.

The Appellant argued that the building collapsed due to rainfall and had to be reconstructed; however rejecting his argument the Court noted that the stop memo predated any alleged collapse, clearly indicating foreknowledge and intent.

The judgment authored by Justice Mehta found the appellant's conduct to be part of a deliberate criminal conspiracy involving collusion with municipal officials to subvert planning laws, “by giving a facade of legitimacy to his fraudulent actions and to establish a preemptive defence in case the illegal acts were exposed.”

“it is evident that the appellant and the officials of the Municipal Corporation were acting hands in glove right from the time of granting permission to renovate the pre-existing building. The officials of the Municipal Corporation deliberately turned a blind eye to the fact that the appellant had commenced construction of a commercial structure by misusing the permit granted for making renovations and/or internal changes. Moreover, they even entertained the fraudulent application filed by the appellant seeking the regularisation of the patently illegal structure. Indisputably, the construction of a commercial structure was not permissible as it fell within a prohibited zone. Hence, the application for regularisation could not have been entertained. Inspite thereof, the conniving officials raised a demand for regularisation presumably to give legitimacy to the conspiratorial design. Thus, the necessary ingredients of the offences alleged are clearly established from the allegations set out in the prosecution's case.”, the court observed.

Accordingly, the Court directed the concerned authorities to proceed with the demolition of the unauthorized construction, uninfluenced by any extraneous circumstances.

Cause Title: G. MOHANDAS VERSUS STATE OF KERALA & ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 704

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R. Basant, Sr. Adv. Ms. Anzu. K. Varkey, AOR Ms. Mahesh Sharma, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. P.V. Dinesh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Harshad V. Hameed, AOR Mr. Dileep Poolakkot, Adv. Mrs. Ashly Harshad, Adv. Ms. Anna Oommen, Adv. Mr. Anshul Saharan, Adv.