IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2010 / 23TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1144 of 2010(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- HARI,PROPRIETOR,"HARISREE" ELECTRONICS, NEAR MUNICIPAL SHOPPING COMPLEX, CHERTHALA,RESIDING AT "HARISREE", KURUPPAMKULANGARA P.O.,CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. CHERTHALA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE,CHERTHALA. 2. THE ASST.DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, ALAPPUZHA. 3. VINODINI AMMA,AGED 68 YEARS, W/O.SANTHAPPAN,KARTHIKA NILAYAM, THRIKKUNNAPUZHA P.O.,ALAPPUZHA. 4. SIDHARTHAN,KAMALA NIVAS (PRAYIL), HOUSE NO.10/821A CMC-12, CHERTHALA,ALAPPUZHA. SRI.J.OMPRAKASH, SC FOR R1 SR.GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 1144 OF 2010 (P) ===================== Dated this the 13th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondent No.1 and learned Government pleader for respondent No.2. 2. Petitioner's grievance is mainly against Ext.P12, an order issued by the 1st respondent exercising powers under Section 406(3) of the Kerala Municipalities Act requiring demolition of a structure which is alleged to have been unauthorisedly constructed. Petitioner submits that the said order has been passed pursuant to Ext.P9 direction of the Ombudsman which was passed based on Ext.P8, a report submitted by the 2nd respondent in obedience with an earlier order rendered by the Ombudsman. Counsel submits that Ext.P9 order passed by the Ombudsman does not deal with his structure, which is now ordered to be demolished and that at any rate, the order was passed without notice to him. 3. If as stated by the petitioner, Exts.P8 and P9 does not concern his structure, and that the order is bad for any other WPC 1144/10 :2 : reason, having regard to the fact that Ext.P9 is only an interim order passed by the Ombudsman, I feel it only appropriate that the petitioner should move the Ombudsman itself and seek appropriate clarifications in the matter so that he can successfully avoid Ext.P12. 4. In order to enable the petitioner to move the Ombudsman and obtain appropriate orders in the matter, I direct that Ext.P12 issued by the 1st respondent be deferred for a period of four weeks and that in the meantime, it is upto the petitioner to seek appropriate orders from the 1st respondent. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp