IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2011 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 14012 of 2011(B) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- MOHAMMED SHERIF, AGED 60, S/O.K.MOHAMMED RAWTHER, KANNARA STREET, KOPPAM, PALAKKAD-678 001. BY ADVS. SRI.K.C.ELDHO, SRI.JIJO THOMAS. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PALAKKAD-678 001. 2. M.JALABUDHIN, S/O. MOHAMMED HUSSAIN RAWTHER, 10/3, 1049, PRATHIBA NAGAR, PALAKKAD-678 001. R1 BY SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. SRI. T.C. SURESH MENON. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.14012 of 2011 ---------------------------- Dated 2nd June, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner who claims to be the owner in possession of a shop room situated in Resurvey No.2590/2 of Palakkad Village filed this writ petition with the prayer to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the first respondent to consider and pass order on Ext.P6 written explanation submitted by the petitioner. Earlier, Ext.P5 notice was issued to the petitioner. Essentially, an action has been initiated against the petitioner as per Ext.P5 alleging unauthorised construction, in fact, installation of an iron ladder, in the aforementioned land. Ext.P5 notice is dated 26.3.2011. The petitioner was given only three days' time to file his objections. On receipt of Ext.P5 the petitioner has filed Ext.P6. However, the petitioner could file Ext.P6 only after the time stipulated in Ext.P5. Admittedly, the first respondent is yet to finalise the proceedings initiated as per Ext.P5. That apart, three days' time granted to the petitioner to file his explanation as per Ext.P5 cannot be considered as a reasonable time. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that no order has so far been passed finalising the proceedings initiated as per Ext.P5 and any such order would be passed only in accordance with law. It is thus obvious that despite the issuance WP(C).No.14012/2011 2 of Ext.P5 notice the first respondent will take any coercive steps only in accordance with the procedures prescribed under the Kerala Municipality Act. Therefore, there is no reason for any apprehension that the first respondent will finalise the procedures without considering the representation submitted by the petitioner or without affording him ample opportunity as contemplated under the provisions of the Act. In view of the above submission this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents not to finalise the proceedings initiated as per Ext.P5 without considering Ext.P6 and without affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS // true copy // P.S. to judge