IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 7TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 14007 of 2004(P) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ M.U. ABDUL KHADER, S/O. YOUSAF KUNJU, AGED 49 YEARS, 41/2223, KALABHAVAN ROAD SOUTH END, ERNAKULAM NORTH, KOCHI-18. BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. CORPORATION OF KOCHI REPESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF KOCHI. ADV. SRI.K.ANAND, SC, COCHIN CORPN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO. 14007/2004-P APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 03/09/2003 ISSUED FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICE, ERNAKULAM FOR PAYMENT OF PROPERTY TAX BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE RECEIPTS FOR PAYMENT OF PROPERTY TAX DATED 28/11/2003 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 21/02/2004 ISSUED BY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT FOR PAYMENT OF PROFESSION TAX. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 25/02/2004 ISSUED BY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT OF FIRST RESPONDENT FOR PAYMENT OF LICENCE FEE. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE ORDER NO.M.O.P.1/2177/03 DATED 05/04/2004. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Rs/ KURIAN JOSEPH, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.14007 of 2004 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT The challenge is on Ext.P5 order passed by the first respondent under Section 406(3) of the Kerala Municipality Act. It is seen that it is a standard form order without referring to what is the violation and what are the contentions of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner was also not afforded an opportunity for hearing. Normally this court would have relegated the petitioner to pursue the matter before the Tribunal. But in view of the peculiar aspects pertaining to the case referred to above, it is only appropriate that the second respondent considers the matter afresh and passes a proper order. Accordingly Ext.P5 order is quashed with a direction to the respondent to consider the matter and pass fresh orders adverting to the contentions taken by the petitioner with notice to the petitioner. There shall be no demolition of the alleged unauthorised construction till such time. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE) ahg. KURIAN JOSEPH, J. ----------------------------------- W.P(C).No.14007 of 2004 ----------------------------------- JUDGMENT 29th September, 2008