IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2008 / 6TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 10210 of 2008(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.B.NOUSHAD PONNY SILKS OLD BUS STAND PAYYANNUR R/AT. KOTTATTIL HOUSE KALATHUR THRISSUR DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.M.V.AMARESAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- PAYYANNUR MUNICIPALITY REP. BY SECRETARY PAYYANNUR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c).No. 10210 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 26th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT In this writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner who was the recipient of Ext.P3 judgment from this court challenges Ext.P5 order issued by the Secretary of the Municipality. According to the petitioner, Ext.P5 order does not qualify as a regular order under Section 406(3)of the Municipalities Act. Ext.P5 has been issued without considering Ext.P4 explanations which the petitioner had submitted pursuant to Ext.P3 judgment. Petitioner has a complaint also that Ext.P5 has been issued without hearing the petitioner. On going through Ext.P5, I find that the Secretary of the Municipality has given opportunity to the petitioner for making his submissions regarding Ext.P5 within seven days. The petitioner has submitted Ext.P6 pursuant to that permit. I have heard Sri.M.V.Amaresan, counsel for the petitioner. In the nature of the relief which is being given to the petitioner, I do not think it necessary to issue notice to the respondent Municipality. The WPC.No.10210/08 2 respondent will consider Ext.P6 reply submitted by the petitioner in response to the opportunity given to him under Ext.P5. Since the main grievance of the petitioner is that Ext.P4 has not been considered by the Secretary while issuing Ext.P5 and that the direction issued by this court was that the petitioner should be heard before orders are passed and since I find from Ext.P5 that the grievance of the petitioner is some what genuine ( in as much as Ext.P5 was not preceded by a hearing of the petitioner and that all the objections raised in Ext.P4 have not been specifically considered), I direct the Secretary of the Municipality to consider Ext.P4 also while considering Ext.P6 and pass orders on Ext.P6 only after hearing the petitioner. Compliance of the above direction will be made by the Municipality at the earliest and at any rate within three weeks of receiving a copy of this judgment. In the meanwhile, there will be a direction to the Municipality not to demolish any portion of the construction put up by the petitioner till such time as a decision is taken by the Secretary on Ext.P6. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. WPC.No.10210/08 3