IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2007 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1928 OP.No. 8936 of 2002(L) ---------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.K.HANSAL, KUDILIL HOUSE, CANAL JEEP ROAD, ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MEETHIYAN KUNJU RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ALUVA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, ALUVA. R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN SRI.A.V.THOMAS SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN SRI.K.T.THOMAS THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/03/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON C.M.P. NO.15936/2002 IN O.P. NO.8936/2002 DISMISSED: 15.3.2007 SD/-(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF LICENECE ISSUED ON 12.12.95 BY R2 TO THE PETITIONER. P2: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DT.9.6.2000 IN O.P. 14718/1998 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. P3: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.25.5.2001 PASSED BY THE GOVERNMENT. P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DT.28.8.2001 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R2(a): TRUE COPY OF REPLY LETTER DT.25.2.97 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER. R2(b): TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DT.5.3.97 PASSED BY MUNICIPALITY. R2(c): TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT.20.7.98 ISSUED BY R1. R2(d): TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT.28.8.2001 ISSUED BY R1. R2(e): TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT.15.3.2002 ISSUED BY R1. R2(f): TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DT.23.3.2002 ISSUED BY MUNICIPALITY TO THE PETITIONER. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... O.P. No.8936 of 2002 .................................................................... Dated this the 15th day of March, 2007. JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging Ext.P3 order whereunder the Government has rejected petitioner's application for regularisation of unauthorised construction. Counsel for the Municipality submitted that on complaint filed by another neighbour about pollution, petitioner's unit is closed. If the industry is closed, then I see no reason why petitioner should retain the unauthorised shed constructed by him. In the circumstances, it is for the petitioner to demolish the authorised construction as demanded by the Municipality. However, if industry is continuing, then I feel the petitioner should be allowed to retain the shed on payment of compounding fee for regularisation of the construction. Government is directed to regularise the construction on petitioner remitting the compounding fee provided petitioner continues the industry now. If payment is not made within one month from today for regularisation of unauthorised construction, the Municipality can proceed for demolition. The O.P. is disposed of as above. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms