IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 5179 of 2010(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SUSHEELAMMA,GOWRI SADANAM, PUTHANANGADI.PO,KOTTAYAM. 2. ANAND.R,DO-- DO. BY ADV. SRI.S.ANANTHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECETARY,KOTTAYAM. 2. SATHEESH BABU,ADVOCATE,VADAKKE AMBATTU HOUSE,PUTHENANGADI.PO,KOTTAYAM. 3. ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR,KOTTAYAM. 4. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,KOTTAYAM. ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.5179 of 2010 (V) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 25th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T Challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P6 notice issued under Section 367 of the Kerala Municipality Act requiring the petitioners to demolish and remove the objectionable construction they have allegedly made. 2. The case of the petitioners is that pursuant to Ext.P4 judgment of this Court in WP(C) No.24887/2009 dated 16/09/2009, the Revenue Divisional Officer was seized of the issue, and it is during the pendency of such proceedings that Ext.P6 notice has been issued. 3. On the other hand, the instructions obtained by the learned standing counsel appearing for the Municipality is otherwise. According to the learned standing counsel, pursuant to Ext.P4 judgment, survey has been completed and a report as mentioned in Ext.P5 has been obtained. It is stated that with the report thus made, the proceedings before the RDO was terminated. WP(C) No.5179/2010 -2- It is also stated that it was on receipt of the report from the revenue authorities that Ext.P6 notice has been issued. 4. If this be the case, the correctness of which cannot be doubted, there is no reason to think that the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that proceedings are pending before the RDO is correct. In such a situation, the remedy available to the petitioners is to seek appellate remedies against Ext.P6. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners complains that the copies of the report and sketch allegedly received by the Secretary, on the basis of which Ext.P6 notice has been issued, have not been served on the petitioners. Though the submission is contradicted by the learned standing counsel pointing out that after the filing of the writ petition, these documents have been served on the petitioners, still, if as a matter of fact the petitioners have not been served copies of the documents, it is directed that on the production of a copy of this judgment the Secretary shall serve on the petitioners copies of the report and sketch, on the basis of which proceedings are now initiated. 5. Now that by Ext.P6 the petitioners are facing the risk of WP(C) No.5179/2010 -3- coercive action for removal of the alleged unauthorised construction, it is only appropriate that coercive action pursuant to Ext.P6 is deferred, at least, till expiry of the appeal period, so that the petitioners can move the appellate authority and obtain appropriate orders in the matter. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:- (1) If copies of the report and sketch, based on which Ext.P6 has been issued, are not served on the petitioners so far, it will be open to the petitioners to demand copies thereof from the Secretary of the Municipality by producing a copy of this judgment. Thereupon, copies thereof shall be issued to them forthwith. (2) In order to enable the petitioners to seek appellate remedies including interim orders, it is directed that further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P6 will be deferred for a period of one month from today. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg