IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 34489 of 2010(I) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. YASMIN BACKER, W/O.ABOOBACKER,RESIDING AT M.I.G. HOUSING COLONY, HOUSE NO.414, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM. 2. WAHEEDA MUSTAFA, W/O.MOHAMMED MUSTAPHA, RESIDING AT PAWATHU PUTHEN VEEDU, VAIKOM, RANNI. BY SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON, SRI.JIBU P THOMAS, SRI.P.S.APPU, SRI.NIKHIL S.KUMAR, SRI.C.A.ANOOP. RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 2. THE KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALIY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOTTAYAM-1. 3. K. VENUGOPAL, S/O.K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, RESIDING AT AMBADY, ERAYIL KADAVU P.O., KOTTAYAM-1. 4. V. HARIKRISHNAN, S/O.K. VENUGOPAL, RESIDING AT AMBADY, ERAYIL KADAVU P.O., KOTTAYAM-1. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.K.R. DEEPA. R2 BY ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW, SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 34489 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Ext.P4 order passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram is under challenge in this writ petition. By that order, the Tribunal set aside Ext.P1 notice dated 30.3.2010 issued by the Secretary of Kottayam Municipality whereby the Secretary of Kottayam Municipality had directed the tenants of a building to vacate the building and the landlords to demolish it. The Tribunal held by the impugned order passed on the appeal filed by two of the tenants without the petitioners landlords on the party array that, as the notice does not set out the provision of law under which it was issued, the tenants are entitled to treat it as a notice issued under section 406 of the Kerala Municipality Act and since the procedure prescribed under section 406 of the Kerala Municipality Act was not followed, the notice is liable to be set aside. The Tribunal however held that it will be open to the Secretary of Kottayam Municipality to issue fresh proceedings as per law. 2. Though the petitioners are right in contending that they ought to have been impleaded as parties to the appeal and I also WPC No.34489/2010 2 find merit in the submission of the petitioners that Ext.P1 notice was issued under section 411 of the Kerala Municipality Act, no useful purpose will be served by interfering with Ext.P4 at this distance of time. Ext.P4 permits the Secretary of Kottayam Municipality to issue fresh proceedings. I am therefore of the opinion that the ends of justice will be met if the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Secretary of Kottayam Municipality to take fresh steps in accordance with section 411 of the Kerala Municipality Act within a time limit. I accordingly dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the Secretary of Kottayam Municipality to issue a revised notice under section 411 of the Kerala Municipality Act to the land owners and tenants of the building, which is the subject matter of Ext.P1 notice and to take such further action as is required in accordance with law. The notice issued under section 411 of the Kerala Municipality Act shall contain the number of the building and also the reason why the building requires to be pulled down . The Secretary shall issue a fresh notice or notices setting out the particulars as are required to be set out therein expeditiously and in any event within two weeks from the date on which the petitioners produce a certified copy of this WPC No.34489/2010 3 judgment before him. The Secretary shall also take such further steps as are required in law to give effect to the provisions of section 411 of the Kerala Municipality Act expeditiously. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps WPC No.34489/2010 4 WPC No.34489/2010 5