IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 34909 of 2010(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUBAITHA BEEVI,AGED 58 YEARS, W/O.N.MUHAMMED HUSSAIN KHAN,RAFEEKA MANZIL, KAMALESWARAM,MANACAUD.P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.C.G.BINDU SMT.C.G.AJITHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CORPORATION OF TRIVANDRUM,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. TOWN PLANNING OFFICER,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. MR.P.K.MANOJ KUMAR, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 34909 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Ext.P11 provisional order issued by the Secretary of Thiruvananthapuram Corporation under section 406(1) of the Kerala Municipality Act [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] is under challenge in this writ petition. The pleadings disclose that earlier Ext.P6 provisional order was issued on 17.9.2009 followed by Ext.P8 final order dated 10.2.2010 and challenging the said orders, that the petitioner filed Appeal No.419 of 2010 before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions and that by Ext.P9 order passed on 18.6.2010, the Tribunal set aside the said orders and directed the Secretary of Thiruvananthapuram Corporation to conduct a local inspection and to ascertain whether the petitioner has put up any unauthorised construction and whether there were any violations and if so, to initiate fresh proper proceedings under section 406 of the Act, if there are reasons for initiating such action. Ext.P11 order was thereupon issued on 9.11.2010. The order sets out the various violations which prompted the action under section 406 of the Act. 2. In my opinion, the challenge to Ext.P11 is misconceived. It is for the petitioner to show cause to the Secretary of Thiruvananthapuram Corporation as to why the said order should not be made absolute. The Secretary has to thereafter pass a final order under sub section (3) of WPC No.34909/2010 2 section 406 of the Act. Under section 509 of the Act, an appeal lies from the final order passed by the Secretary under section 406 of the Act to the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. In such circumstances it has to be necessarily held that the challenge to Ext.P11 is premature. I therefore find no grounds to entertain the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed with the observation that if the petitioner files an objection to Ext.P11 provisional order within two weeks from today, the Secretary shall consider the same and take an appropriate decision in the matter thereafter. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the final order passed by the Secretary under section 406 of the Act, it will be open to her to challenge the same in appeal before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps WPC No.34909/2010 3 WPC No.34909/2010 4