IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2011 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 OP(C).No. 3455 of 2011(O) ------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- P.C.JOHN, S/O.LATE CHACKO, PUKIDIYIL HOUSE, KUZHIMATTOM KARA & POST, PANACHIKKAD VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.KURUVILLA JACOB RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM.686 001. 2. THE SECRETARY, KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM-686 001. 3. K.R.G.WARRIER, MUNICIPAL COUNSELLOR FROM WARD NO.16, KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM-686 001. BY ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW FOR R1,2 SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU FOR R1,2 SRI.B.PREMNATH (E) FOR R1,2 THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: STK OP(C).No. 3455/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS : EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 19.10.2010 ISSUED TO PETITIONER FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICE, MUTTAMBALAM. EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF 2ND RESPONDENT'S STOP MEMO CUM-PRELIMINARY ORDER DATED 29.12.10 ISSUED TO PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF 2ND RESPONDENT'S NOTICE DATED NIL, ISSUED TO PETITIONER ALONG WITH EXT.P2. EXHIBIT P4- TRUE COPY OF PETITIONER'S LETTER SUBMITTED BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 3.1.11. EXHIBIT P5- TRUE COPY OF 2ND RESPONDENT'S FINAL ORDER DATED 12.1.11 COMMUNICATED TO PETITIONER ON 19.1.11. EXHIBIT P6- TRUE COPY OF PETITIONER'S LETTER DATED 27.1.11 FORWARDED TO 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7- TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 18.5.11 IN APPEAL NO.120/2011 OF LEARNED TRIBUNAL FOR THE LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXHIBIT P7A- TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 4.6.11 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF 2ND RESPONDENT WHILE RECEIVING EXT.P7 ORDER. EXHIBIT P8- TRUE COPY OF PETITIONER'S APPLICATION DATED 16.7.11 SUBMITTED TO 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. EXHIBIT P9- TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S COMPLAINT DATED 5.9.11 SUBMITTED IN THE OFFICE OF 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9A-TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 6.9.11 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF 2ND RESPONDENT WHILE RECEIVING EXT.P9 COMPLAINT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P A TO JUDGE STK THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- O.P(C).No.3455 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 21st day of December, 2011 JUDGMENT At a time when petitioner was constructing a compound wall, according to him as it had collapsed, the third respondent preferred a complaint that petitioner is constructing compound wall in violation of the relevant Rules. That was followed by the second respondent issuing a memo to stop work and calling upon petitioner to give explanation. Since explanation preferred was not satisfactory, second respondent issued Ext.P5, final order directing petitioner to demolish the compound wall. Petitioner challenged that order in the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram (for short, "the Tribunal”). The Tribunal passed Ext.P7, order on 18.05.2011 as per which the final order of second respondent was set aside and second respondent was directed to consider the application for regularisation preferred by petitioner on merit and pass appropriate orders without much delay. The Tribunal also directed that until such orders are passed no coercive steps shall be taken to demolish the compound wall and that if ultimately the second respondent decides not to regularise the construction, he O.P(C).No.3455 of 2011 -: 2 :- should pass appropriate orders for its demolision. Grievance of petitioner is that though the Tribunal passed order on 18.05.2011, second respondent has not disposed of the application for regularisation and since construction of compound wall is not completed, on account of elevation of the land there is flow of water from the property of petitioner to the adjoining road. Petitioner, by Ext.P8, application wanted second respondent to intimate the reason for delay in disposal of the application for regularisation but, there was no response. Hence this original petition for direction to the second respondent to dispose of the application for regularisation within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. 2. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and respondents 1 and 2. 3. In the light of Ext.P7, order, second respondent has to decide, as circumstances warranted the application for regularisation preferred by petitioner. Having regard to the difficulties of petitioner stated by learned counsel, I am inclined to direct the second respondent to dispose of the application. Resultantly this Original Petition is disposed of as under: (i) The second respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders on the application for O.P(C).No.3455 of 2011 -: 3 :- regularisation preferred by petitioner within two months from this day. (ii) It is directed that in case the order is adverse to the petitioner, consequent order for demolition of compound wall shall not be enforced until the expiry of two weeks from the day a copy of the order for demolition is served on petitioner. (THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-