IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 1ST PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 23322 of 2007(B) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ VENU, AGED 43, S/O KOCHUKRISHNAN, THOIKAVIL HOUSE, PUTHURKARA DESOM, AYYANTHOLE VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE THRISSUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, M.O.ROAD, THRISSUR. 2. THE SECRETARY, THRISSUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, M.O. ROAD, THRISSUR. 3. SINDHU, D/O SARASWATHIAMMA, VILAKKAPPILLY HOUSE, AYYANTHOLE VILLAGE DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. SUDHEER, S/O. SARASWATHIAMMA, VILAKKAPPILLY HOUSE, AYYANTHOLE VILLAGE DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 5. THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS,SC,THRISSUR CORPORATION SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS SRI.LELLULAL T.G.THUNDATHIL SRI.K.A.SREEJITH BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SHYSON P. MANGUZHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ----------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No. 23322 OF 2007 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of February, 2008 J U D G M E N T Even though Sri.G.Sreekumar argued very strenuously I am not persuaded to hold that Ext.P2 order of the Tribunal is vitiated by infirmities of such a magnitude as to warrant correction by this court either in the jurisdiction under Article 227 or in the jurisdiction under Article 226. It is not in dispute that the main building which is subject matter of the first point mentioned in the consequential order Ext.P7 was constructed without permit under Building Rules in an area where the permit issued under the Building Rules was absolutely necessary for commencing construction. As regards points Nos. 2 and 3 mentioned in Ext.P7 it is conceded that those constructions are illegal. The Tribunal had before it Exts.P1 to P5 produced on the side of the petitioner and Ext.R1 file containing all the relevant papers relating to the corporation's action. I find on going through Ext.P2 that findings have been entered on appreciation of evidence. It cannot be said that the decision of the Tribunal is not based on any evidence. Though it would appear as if the landlady by not applying for regularization of the construction (though it might have been possible for her) is taking a very unusual stand. At the same time I am not prepared to say that WP(C)N0. 23322/07 -2- the landlady is acting mala fide. The landlady is the major loser since the entire building including portions under the occupation of another person in cordial terms with her is going to be demolished. I do not find any reason warranting correction by judicial review on Ext.P2. Challenge against Ext.P2 fails. However, considering the appealing submissions of Mr.Sreekumar that a reasonable time must be given to the petitioner for identifying another place for accommodating his business, there will be a direction to the Corporation not to enforce with Exts.P2 and P7 for a period of four months from today. It is made clear that this court has not taken any decision regarding the correctness of the rival decisions taken in the dispute regarding payment of security deposit or advance by the petitioner. Those issues will be decided by the competent civil court which I am told already is in seizin of the matter in O.S.741/06 before Munsiff Court, Trichur. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) ksv/20208