IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2008 / 28TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 10248 of 2008(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- A.K.SASIKALA, SECRETARY, KOLLAM CORPORATION. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.) SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SMT.SMITHA GEORGE RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. REMA DEVI, W/O.UNNIKRISHNA PILLAI, ADAVOORAZHIKOM, K P XIV/10, PULIYATHU MUKKU, KILIKOLLOOR,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 10248 OF 2008 - T = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 18th June 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was the Secretary of the Kollam Corporation. She is aggrieved by the adverse comments made by the 1st respondent Tribunal in Ext. P12 order. 2. The facts which led to the issuance of Ext. P12 are that the 2nd respondent, a resident of Kollam Corporation, had applied for altering the roof of her building. It is stated that permit was granted. However, she reconstructed the building and that led to the issuance of Ext. P1 stop memo. Ext. P2 provisional show cause notice was thereafter issued to which the 2nd respondent submitted Ext. P3 explanation. After considering Ext. P3 explanation, petitioner issued Ext. P4, under Section 406(3) of the Kerala Municipalities Act. 3. Against Ext. P4, the 2nd respondent filed appeal before the 1st respondent which was disposed of by Ext. P5. By this order W.P.(C) No. 10248 OF 2008 - 2 - the Tribunal set aside Exts. P2 and P4 and directed that fresh and proper proceedings be initiated under Section 406 of the Act against the 2nd respondent. It is stated that in pursuance thereto Ext. P6 provisional order was issued to which Ext. P7 explanation was submitted. Thereafter, a hearing was also held on 27.12.2007 and Ext.P8 final order was issued under Section 406(3) of the Act, requiring demolition and removal of the structure. 4. The fresh proceedings so initiated resulting in Ext. P8, was again challenged before the Tribunal in Appeal No. 35/08. Ext. P10 is the memorandum of appeal filed by the 2nd respondent and Ext. P11 is the written statement filed by the Corporation. The Tribunal heard the matter and passed Ext. P12 order allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned proceedings and directing that fresh proceedings be initiated without any unnecessary delay if there are any reasons for doing so. The complaint of the petitioner is not against the relief that was granted against the 2nd respondent but against the damaging observations made by the Tribunal personally against her which are contained in paragraphs 8 and 12 of the order. The Tribunal has also imposed a cost of Rs.2,000/- W.P.(C) No. 10248 OF 2008 - 3 - which is also directed to be recovered from the petitioner. 5. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue for the position that there was absolutely no warrant for the observations that are made. According to the senior counsel, petitioner was only carrying out the duties that are conferred on her under Section 406 of the Act. It is stated that as admittedly the construction was without a building permit or approved plan and if that be so, the petitioner was duty bound to take action against the offenders. 6. The counsel for the 2nd respondent sought to justify the order mainly contending that the building permit issued by the respondent allowed the construction. It is true that as per Ext. R2(a) building permit, the construction was apparently permitted. Evidently since the grievance of the petitioner is mainly about the strictures that has been passed against the petitioner and the cost imposed I do not think it necessary to probe into the legality or otherwise of the construction that has been made which in any case is a matter which is to be enquired into by the Corporation themselves. W.P.(C) No. 10248 OF 2008 - 4 - 7. True I should agree with the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the strictures that have been passed are damaging and will certainly affect the career of the petitioner. On going through Ext. P12 it can be seen that such adverse strictures were passed by the Tribunal without even putting the petitioner on notice in her personal capacity. Needless to say that if any such strictures are to be passed personally against any officer, even if he deserves it, such action can only be after complying with the principles of natural justice, by putting the officer concerned on notice and after hearing the version of the officer on the issue. This has not been done in this case and on the other hand, the Tribunal unilaterally proceeded to make the strictures. 8. For this reason itself I cannot sustain Ext. P12 order in so far as it contains adverse strictures against the petitioner. Therefore, I direct that the strictures that are made personally against the petitioner will stand expunged. Since the basis of imposition of costs against the petitioner is the adverse finding against her, as a necessary consequence, the costs will also stand deleted. W.P.(C) No. 10248 OF 2008 - 5 - 9. It is clarified that the Corporation will carry out the direction in Ext. P12 and if necessary, initiate fresh proceedings against the 2nd respondent as directed by the Tribunal in Ext.P12 order. With the aforesaid direction the writ petition is disposed of. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-