IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2010 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 10367 of 2010(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.KUNHABDULLA, AGED 69 YEARS, S/O.MOIDEEN, MUSHIBILA HOUSE, V.O.ROAD, VADAKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.BALASUBRAMANYAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. VADAKARA MUNICIPALITY REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, VADAKARA. 2. GOVT.OF KERALA, REP.BY SECRETARY LOCAL SELF GOVT.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER K.R.DEEPA SC SRI.P.K. VIJAYAMOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).10367/2010 -------------------- Dated this the 26th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P10 order under Section 406 (3) of the Kerala Municipalities Act, issued by the 1st respondent, requiring the petitioner to demolish and remove the structure mentioned therein. Ext.P10 was preceded by Ext.P6 notice. However, on account of the fact that the petitioner was undergoing treatment in various hospitals, petitioner submits that he could not file his reply to Ext.P6. In support of his plea of hospitalization and treatment, petitioner has produced Exts.P7 and P9. 3. Having regard to the fact that for reasons which were beyond the control of the petitioner he was prevented from filing objections to Ext.P6, it is only appropriate that the petitioner is given an opportunity to file his reply to Ext.P6 and the Municipality should reconsider the matter with an opportunity to W.P.(C).10367/10 2 him, disclosing the materials that are sought to be used against the petitioner. In view of the above, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions; 4. It will be open to the petitioner to file his reply to Ext.P6, within three weeks from today. It is directed that along with the reply it will also be open to the petitioner to seek disclosure of any materials that are relied on against him and the Municipality shall disclose such materials. Thereafter, notice shall be issued to the petitioner, he shall be heard and fresh orders shall be passed in the matter. In order to enable the Municipality to do so, Ext.P10 is quashed. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the contentions raised and it will be open to the Municipality to reconsider the matter and pass fresh orders in the matter as directed above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs