IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2010 / 17TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 15867 of 2010(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------- K.M.SUBAIDA, SURUMI PLAZA, EAST FORT ROAD, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.DEEPU THANKAN SMT.G.RANJITA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVT.DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON FOR R1 SRI.JIBU P THOMAS FOR R1 SRI.P.S.APPU FOR R1 SRI.C.A.ANOOP FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.15867 of 2010 --------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 7th DAY OF JUNE, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved by Exhibit P8 proceedings of the Secretary of the Municipality whereby the regularisation of the constructions ordered earlier stands cancelled that too without notice, according to the petitioner. The short facts leading to the dispute are the following: 2. The petitioner and her husband Kombathayil Mammu are the owners of a shopping complex called Surumi Plaza situated in Wart No.18 of Palakkad Municipality. She started construction of the shopping complex after getting building permit which was completed by May, 2009. The formalities for numbering the building and assessment of property tax was completed thereafter, which is evidenced by Exhibit P1 series. 3. Subsequent to the numbering of the building, the petitioner converted the basement area of the building as shop rooms and in order to give parking place, five cents of property situated near the shopping complex was purchased by the W.P.(C)No.15867/10 -2- petitioner. Based on the request submitted by the petitioner, regularisation of the plan was approved by the Municipality on 19.11.2009 and numbers were allotted to the newly built up rooms in the basement area. Notice for assessment of property tax was also issued. The petitioner accordingly remitted the tax at the enhanced rate for the month of March, 2010. These averments are sought to be supported by placing reliance on Exhibits P2 and P3 series. Later, the petitioner requested to change the ownership of the building by inducting her minor children as owners of the 2nd and 3rd floors respectively. The same was allowed by the Municipality and ownership was issued to each owners as per Exhibit P4 series. 4. Exhibit P5 is a notice dated 18.12.2009 informing the petitioner that though the Municipality has approved the regularisation of shifting of the portion of the parking place to a new compound situated near to the property, a special permission has to be obtained from the Government. The petitioner moved an application in the matter as per Exhibits P6 and P7. While this matter was pending, the petitioner obtained Exhibit P8 notice stating that the regularisation made by the W.P.(C)No.15867/10 -3- Municipality is against Rule 31 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules and the same is being cancelled. 5. Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Municipality. It is admitted that no notice was issued before the decision for cancellation was taken and communicated to the petitioner. It was submitted that a notice was issued to the petitioner before the decision cancelling the regularisation was communicated. It is also pointed out that the references made in Exhibit P8 are in respect of Exhibit P5 as well as the order dated 1.2.2010 of the Government. It is further pointed out that the petitioner has got an effective remedy of filing an appeal against Exhibit P8. 6. The order of cancellation is one issued without notice to the petitioner and since the same is adverse to the petitioner, it is clear that the same has visited with adverse civil consequences to the petitioner. The same can be done only after complying with the principles of natural justice. Even though there is a remedy of filing an appeal, still the defect in the proceedings looms large and it is only fit and proper that the Municipality reconsider the matter with notice to the petitioner. W.P.(C)No.15867/10 -4- Therefore, Exhibit P8 is quashed. The Municipality will be free to reconsider the matter after issuing a notice to the petitioner showing the reasons for cancellation. Final orders will be passed only after allowing the petitioner to submit her objections and after affording her an opportunity for personal hearing. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. dsn