IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2009 / 1ST SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 9662 of 2009(C) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. MUHAMMED,S/O.IBRAHIM,AGED 45 YEARS, MUNDACKAL HOUSE,IRINGOLE KARA, PERUMBAVOOR. 2. NAZER,S/O.IBRAHIM,AGED 40 YEARS, MUNDACKAL HOUSE,IRINGOLE KARA, PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADV. MR.P.ALI RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY,PERUMBAVOOR MUNICIPALITY, PERUMBAVOOR. 2. THE CHAIRMAN,PERUMBAVOOR MUNICIPALITY, PERUMBAVOOR. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.V.M.KURIAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/07/2009 ALONG WITH WPC.NO.20332 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.9662/2009 C APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO.3574/09 DTD. 27/02/2009. P2: COPY OF THE MEMO ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPT. DTD. 17/03/2009. P3: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE ENGINEER DTD.18/03/2009. P4: COPY OF THE APPROVED PLAN. P5: COPY OF THE SKETCH. P6: COPY OF THE APPROVAL ORDER DTD.22/11/06. P7: CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE APPROVED ENGINEER. P8: COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DTD. 17/03/07. P9: COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 22/03/07. P10: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 18/05/07. P11: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION ALONGWITH SKETCH DTD.6/06/07. P12: COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DTD. 1/10/07. P13: COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 4/10/07. P14: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 23/11/07. P15: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN APPEAL NO.559/07. P16: COPY OF THE MEMO DTD. 22/02/08. P17: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 25/02/08. P18: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 2/04/08. P19: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN APPEAL NO.206/08. P20: ORIGINAL OF THE NOTICE DTD. 10/01/09. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NOs.9662 & 20332 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF JULY, 2009 JUDGMENT The earlier among the captioned writ petitions is filed by the petitioners when proceedings were initiated against them for alleged violation of permit and plan sanctioned for a construction activity. There was an existing building in the land in question. It is stated that the petitioner applied for change of roof and also for putting up a first floor. This court retained that writ petition herein as per interim order dated 25.3.2009 issued in WP(C)9662 of 2009, requiring the final order that may be issued after considering the objections, to be placed before this court. The Municipality has placed it in WP(C)9662 of 2009. 2. WP(C)20332 of 2009 is filed challenging the aforesaid final order. 3. The controversy between the parties appear to be one generating adjudication of mixed question of facts and law. I say this because the Municipality alleges that the petitioner has gone beyond the bounds of the original plinth of the ground floor and Wpc 9662/2009 2 has put up a construction in the rear of the original structure and that this is in violation of the plan and permit. This is disputed by the petitioner, who also refute the stand of the Municipality that the roof of the ground floor is perched at a level higher than that which is originally sanctioned. Obviously therefore, the matter can be resolved before the statutory authority viz, Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. 4. The petitioners however pointed out that they have been repeatedly going over to the Tribunal and also to this court and getting orders in their favour. However, to a pointed query by this court as to why the petitioners cannot now seek relief from the Tribunal, it is stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that every order of the Tribunal is followed by a subsequent statutory proceedings by the Municipality. This I think is not the answer to any sustainable skipping of jurisdiction under the statutory provisions. For the aforesaid reasons, it is ordered that the final order against the petitioner will stand suspended for a period of three weeks, enabling the petitioner to file statutory appeal/revision against the same and seek relief from the Tribunal for Local Self Wpc 9662/2009 3 Government Institutions. This order of stay is only as against demolition and would not enable the petitioners to carry on with the construction. All issues on merits left open. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/23/7