IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2009 / 2ND ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 14567 of 2009(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MRS. KAMALAMMA THOMAS WIFE OF LATE THOMAS MATHEW, AGED 75 YEARS, HOUSE NO. 36/1924, INJAKKAL JUNCTION SOUTH, VALLAKKADAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR SRI.LEO GEORGE SRI.K.P.SUJESH KUMAR SRI.K.N.SASIDHARAN NAIR SMT.SANDHYA RADHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, CORPORATION, 4. SURESH BABU, ERA-108,T.C. NO. 36/1913(1) PERUNTHANNI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1,2,3 SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR FOR R1,2,3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).14567/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT 4th respondent, who is the neighbouring property owner of the petitioner, started putting up a construction on the southern side of the petitioner's property, allegedly in an unauthorised manner. This was brought to the notice OF the Corporation by the petitioner, which had taken action under Section 406 of the Municipalities Act. Ext.P1 order was communicated to the 4th respondent under Ext.P2, but orders were not implemented. In the meanwhile, 4th respondent preferred an appeal before the Tribunal which vide Ext.P6 judgment, interfered with the order passed by the Corporation on the ground that the Corporation did not give adequate notice to the 4th respondent, as prescribed under the Statute. Matter was directed to be reconsidered by the Corporation, in accordance with law. Therefore, Ext.P7 provisional notice was again issued, according to the petitioner committing the same mistake by confining the notice W.P.(C).14567/2009 2 period upto seven days. Reasonable time, according to the Tribunal, should have been at least 14 days. Exts.P6 and P7 have been challenged in this writ petition. Though 4th respondent has been served from this Court, there is no appearance. 2. I heard Mr.P.B.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Nandakumara Menon, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation. 3. Mr.Menon points out that Ext.P7 notice is dated 12.5.2009 and obviously more than a month's time has already been afforded to the 4th respondent to reply to the same. The apprehension expressed by the petitioner, therefore, does not in fact exist, he points out. 4. Be that as it may, Corporation shall ensure that the 4th respondent should have been afforded at least 14 days' time to reply to Ext.P7. Further orders pursuant to Ext.P7 shall be passed by the Secretary of W.P.(C).14567/2009 3 the Corporation, after notice to the petitioner as also the 4th respondent. It is made clear that in the event of an appeal being preferred against the order of the Corporation being passed, either by the petitioner or by the 4th respondent, 4th respondent and the petitioner respectively shall be made parties in such proceedings. Corporation shall pass final orders pursuant to Ext.P7 as early as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs