IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 3RD ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 28071 of 2008(P) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- A.V.JOSE, MANAGING PARTNER ALUKKAS JEWELLERY, T.C NO.37/890 PADMA PADAM, EAST FORT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH SRIR.AZAD BABU SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT (E) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY CORPORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SECRETARY THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.V. MANOJ KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J ================== W.P(C)No.28071 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 25th day of September, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is threatened with demolition of certain buildings constructed by him. Exts.P5 and P7 orders are passed in this regard. The petitioner originally challenged Exts.P3 and P7 orders before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 13973/2004. In the same, by Ext.P8 judgment this Court held thus : “4. Admittedly, the petitioner had not obtained any permit from the respondent Corporation and this factual position averred in the statement filed by the Corporation is not disputed by the petitioner. If so there cannot be anything illegal with Exts.P3 and P7. However, the construction made is sought to be justified comparing to a meter cabin, which is exempted from the provisions of the Municipalities Act. I am not in a position to accept this contention. A meter cabin and a structure in the nature of the one constructed by the petitioner and mentioned in Exts.P3 and P7, are totally incomparable and cannot be equated. Therefore as the structure constructed is admittedly without a permit Exts.P3 and P7 are unassailable and are liable to be upheld. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be given leave to move the Tribunal by filing an appeal. The petitioner may do so if the same is permissible in law. Writ petition fails and is dismissed.” That judgment was confirmed in W.A. No. 1581 of 2008. Thereafter the petitioner filed an appeal before the Tribunal W.P(C)No.28071 of 2008 - 2 - for local authorities against Exts.P3 and P7 orders which were dismissed on the ground of limitation by Ext.P13 order. The petitioner is now challenging Ext.P13 order and the demolition of his building. The petitioner's contention is that despite, Ext.P8 judgment, in view of the liberty given to him in paragraph 5 of Ext.P8 judgment he is entitled to maintain an appeal. I am not inclined to countenance that contention. In Ext.P8 judgment this Court has in unmistakable terms stated that the structure constructed by the petitioner is admittedly without permission and therefore Exts.P3 and P7 are unassailable and are liable to be upheld. That is a decision on merits on the validity of Exts.P3 and P7. Exts.P3 and P7 having been upheld in Ext.P8 judgment the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the same either in appeal or before this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs