IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2008 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 7351 of 2008(A) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ ANEESA, W/O.NAZEER KAVINTE PADEETTATHIL, KANNAMPALLI BHAGOM KAYAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.K.JAGADEESH SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE KAYAMKULAM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, KAYAMKULAM. 2. THE KAYAMKULAM MUNCIPAL COUNCIL REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN KAYAMKULAM MUNICIPALITY, KAYAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.RAYA SHENOI,SC,KAYAMKULAM MUNICIPALITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c).No. 7351 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 31th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT Ext.P6 order was issued by the Secretary of the Municipality rejecting the petitioner's application for numbering the building as well as for issuance of occupancy certificate. Challenging Ext.P6 petitioner has approached this court and this court passed Ext.P7 judgment finding that the order impugned is appealable under Section 509(1) to the council. The Municipality has now passed Ext.P10 order rejecting the appeal and Ext.P10 is under challenge in this writ petition. Interalia it is stated in Ext.P10 that the appeal preferred by the petitioner is not maintainable. It is seen that the Municipal Council has construed Ext.P6 order issued by the Secretary as an order under Section 406(3) of the Municipalities Act. According to me, it was not proper on the part of the council to have found that the appeal is not maintainable in the teeth of Ext.P7 judgment of this court. However, I am not inclined to direct the Municipality to have a re-consideration since it is seen that the appeal has been considered on its merits also. Since Ext.P10 is the WPC.No.7351/08 2 result of the consideration of the merits of the grounds raised by the petitioner in the appeal, I am of the view that the petitioner should seek his remedies by way of revision before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. I dispose of the writ petition directing the petitioner to prefer a revision before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions against Ext.P10. If the petitioner prefers a revision within three weeks from today, the Tribunal will entertain that revision and dispose of the same in accordance with law notwithstanding the apparent delay. Considering the above directions, the Municipality is directed not to demolish the constructions made by the petitioner as unauthorised construction till such time as the revision is disposed of by the Tribunal. The Tribunal is also directed to consider any application for provisional numbering of the building which may be submitted by the petitioner along with his prospective revision and pass orders on that application at the earliest and at any rate within one month of registering that application. PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE sv. WPC.No.7351/08 2