IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2010 / 1ST MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 35483 of 2009(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ C.JAFFER,F.R.MANZIL,MANALI ROAD, KALMANDAPAM,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVT.LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY CORPORATION, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,PALAKKAD. 3. MUNICIPAL ENGINEER,PALAKKAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,PALAKKAD. 4. KERALA FINANCIAL CORPORATION, PALAKKAD.REP.BY ITS MANAGER. ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON FOR R2 SRI.JIBU P THOMAS FOR R2 SRI.P.S.APPU FOR R2 SRI.A.R.NIMOD FOR R2 SRI.C.A.ANOOP FOR R2 SRI.R.S.KALKURA, SC FOR KFC SR.GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 35483 OF 2009 (E) ===================== Dated this the 21st day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The grievance of the petitioner is against Ext.P8, a fresh order requiring the petitioner to demolish the structure mentioned therein. It is stated that on an earlier occasion, an order of demolition was issued against the petitioner, which was challenged before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions in Appeal No.505/09. That appeal was disposed of by Ext.P6 order setting aside the order of demolition and directing the Municipality to take fresh steps in accordance with law. It is stated that nothing further was heard and therefore the petitioner sought numbering of the building by filing Ext.P7. According to the petitioner, when that application was received, the Municipality issued Ext.P8 order requiring demolition of the structure. It is contended that Ext.P8 was not preceded by a provisional order or an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and therefore it is illegal. 2. Despite the instructions obtained by the standing counsel for the Municipality, nothing has been brought out to WPC 35483/09 :2 : show that Ext.P8 was preceded by a provisional order or an opportunity to the petitioner to make his representations in the matter. In that view of the matter, Ext.P8 cannot be sustained. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing that Ext.P8 will be treated as a provisional order issued under Section 406(1) of the Municipalities Act and that it will be open to the petitioner to file his objections to Ext.P8 within three weeks from today. It is directed that once objection is received as above, petitioner will be given an opportunity of hearing and thereafter final orders will be passed in accordance with law. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp