IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2010 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 35736 of 2010(N) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- V.RADHAKRISHNAN, VAZHAYIL HOUSE,VENGERI P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 010 BY ADVS. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN SRI.HANSON.P.MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. KOZHIKODE CORPORATION REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, KOZHIKODE-673 032. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -01 3. M.P.NARAYANAN NAMBISSAN, 'KAUSTHUPAM',VENGERI P.O.,KOZHIKODE PIN-673010 R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.D.BABU,SC,KOZHIKODE CORPORATION R2 BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT. K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 35736 of 2010 N ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 14th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T On the strength of Ext.P3 building permit, petitioner constructed the first floor of an existing building. It is stated that thereupon, the at the instance of the third respondent, proceedings were initiated and orders were issued under Section 406 of the Municipalities Act. Petitioner challenged that order before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions by filing Appeal No.456/2010, which was dismissed by Ext.P7. It is challenging the aforesaid proceedings, this writ petition is filed. 2. Admittedly, there is a deviation and therefore the proceedings cannot be said to be illegal. Be that as it may, counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner intents to move the Corporation for regularising the construction by making an application under Rule 17 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules and prays that until he makes an W.P.(C) No.35736/10 : 2 : application and orders are passed, the Corporation shall not take coercive action. 3. I heard the Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation. 4. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner intents to move an application under Rule 17, I feel it is only appropriate that coercive action should be kept in abeyance. Therefore, I direct that if the petitioner makes an application under Rule 17 within two weeks from today, coercive action on the strength of the impugned orders will be kept in abeyance until orders are passed as above. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge