IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2008 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 7934 of 2008(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ VIJAYAKUMARI.C.T., AGED 48 YEARS, W/O.LATE K.P.VIKRAMA MENON, VIJAYA VIHAR, PADIVATTOM, EDAPPALLY P.O., KOCHI-24. BY ADV. SRI.S.SUDHISH KUMAR SRI.K.B.DAYAL SRI.SIBI KARUN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CORPORATION OF KOCHI, CORPORATION OFFICE, EDAPPALLY. 2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF ADMINISTRATION, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE SECRETARY, KOCHI CORPORATION. BY SC SRI.S.RAMESH BABU G.P. SRI.K.J.MUHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ---------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 7934 of 2008 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of March , 2008 JUDGMENT It is submitted by Sri.S.Ramesh Babu the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation that Ext.P2 regularisation application is even now pending with the Corporation. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.S.Sudhish Kumar refers to Rule 18(1)(c)(iii) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules and submits that Ext.P4 order is per se bad in as much as the same is not preceded by an opportunity to the petitioner to show cause or by a hearing. 2. The learned Standing Counsel resists the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Ext.P4 is not preceded by any notice or hearing. 3. Having considered the rival submissions addressed at the bar, I am of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of issuing the following directions; i). The Secretary of the Corporation will take up Ext.P2, WPC No.7934/2008 2 hear the petitioner and take a correct and just decision on Ext.P2 at the earliest and at any rate within six weeks of receiving a copy of this judgment and communicate the decision to the petitioner. ii). If the decision on Ext.P2 is against the petitioner, the petitioner is permitted to treat Ext.P4 as notice and is permitted to file objections within three weeks of the order on the regularisation application being communicated to her. If objections are filed by the petitioner, as permitted above, the Corporation will hear the petitioner and then take decision as to whether any demolition order under Rule 18 (3) is liable to be passed against the petitioner. Iii). The interim order already passed by this court will continue till such time as both the above direction are complied with. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. dpk WPC No.7934/2008 3