IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 14TH JUNE 2011 / 24TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 13662 of 2011(G) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- 1. VINAYAKAN, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O. ANDY, KUTTATHARA HOUSE, PISHARATH STREET, KANNANKULANGARA NORTH, N.PARAVUR. 2. LALITHA, AGED 58 YEARS, W/O. VINAYAKAN, KUTTATHARA HOUSE, PISHARATH STREET, KANNANKULANGARA NORTH, N.PARAVUR. BY ADVS. SRI.A.X.VARGHESE SRI.A.V.JOJO RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. N.PARAVUR MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, N.PARAVUR MUNICIPALITY, N.PARAVUR, PIN-683 522. 2. THE MUNICIPAL ENGINEER, N.PARAVUR MUNICIPALITY, N.PARAVUR, PIN-683 522. 3. N.K.DEVARAJAN, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O.KUMARAN PILLAI, NEDIYARA HOUSE, PISHARATH STREET, KANNANKULANGARA, N.PARAVUR, PIN-683 522. 4. DAYASON VARGHESE, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. VARGHESE, ANATHAZHATH HOUSE, PISHARATH STREET, KANNANKULANGARA, N.PARAVUR, PIN-683 522. 5. VENKITTARAMAN POTTI, S/O. NARAYANAN EMBRAN, PISHARATH MADATHIL, PISHARATH STREET, KANNANKULANGARA, N.PARAVUR, PIN-683 522. 6. N.I.PAULOSE, S/O. ITTOOPPU,NEDUMTHALLIL HOUSE, THATTUKADAVU,KANNANKULANGARA, N.PARAVUR,PIN-683 522. R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 13662/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE SALE DEED BEARING NO.66092007 DATED 01/09/2007 P2: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 22/03/2011. P3: COPY OF THE SKETCH PREPARED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NORTH PARAVUR. P4: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 22/03/2011. P5: COPY OF THE O.S.194/2011 DATED 28/03/2011. P6: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 02/05/2011. P7: COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 13/05/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.13662 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated 14th June, 2011 JUDGMENT The second petitioner is the owner in possession of 4.414 cents of property comprised in Survey No.269/5D-19 of Paravur Village. Alleging unauthorised construction in the said property the first respondent has issued Ext.P6 notice under section 406(1) of the Kerala Municipality Act (for short `the Act'). On its receipt, the petitioners have submitted Ext.P7 reply. This writ petition has been filed challenging Exts.P6 and P4. As per Ext.P4, the first respondent directed the petitioners to remove the sheet roof protruded into the pathway. The further prayer of the petitioners is for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the first respondent not to make a new public street on the western side of the property of the 2nd petitioner without invoking the provisions contained in Chapter XVII of the Act and also for consideration of Ext.P7 objection before passing final orders. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. It is specifically stated therein that after considering Ext.P7 reply submitted by the petitioners on receipt of Ext.P6 the provisional order in Ext.P6 was confirmed and a final order to that effect has been passed in WP(C).No.13662/2011 2 terms of section 406(3) of the Act, on 18.5.2011. It is further stated that the said order was served on the petitioners on 19.5.2011. There cannot be any dispute with respect to the position that in terms of the provisions under section 509(6) of the Kerala Municipality Act an appeal will lie against the said order before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. In view of the said position, in case the petitioners are aggrieved by the final order passed by the respondents under section 406 (3) of the Act, on 18.5.2011, they have to prefer an appeal. In view of the fact that an alternative efficacious remedy is available in this case, I am of the view that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Liberty is granted to the petitioners to challenge the final order passed on 18.5.2011 in appropriate proceedings by availing the statutory remedy. To enable the petitioners to avail the said remedy, two weeks time is granted from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. There will be a further direction that the respondents shall keep in abeyance all coercive steps based on the order passed on 18.5.2011 for a period of six weeks. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS