IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2010 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 16073 of 2010(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MR.SUBHASH.M, SECRETARY, ELAMBANAM, KUZHIVILAKOM BHAGAVATHI KSHETRAM, CHILAKKOOR, VARKALA. BY ADV. SRI.SEBASTIAN DAVIS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE SECRETARY, VARKALA MUNICIPALITY, VARKALA P.O. BY ADV.SHRI T.S.AJITH KUMAR, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.16073/2010-H ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 26th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved by the delay on the part of the respondent-Municipality in passing final orders under Section 406 of the Kerala Municipality Act. He is the Secretary of the Elambanam Kuzhivilakom Bhagavathi Kshetram, Chilakkoor, Varkala. The reconstruction and renovation of the temple was started in the year 2008 and a substantial portion of the work has already been completed. Alleging that the reconstruction was carried out without getting licence from the Municipality, a stop memo was issued against the petitioner, pursuant to which the petitioner filed an application for regularisation. It is the case of the petitioner that the Municipal Council passed an order on 12/11/2009 regularising the reconstruction of the temple and issue of permit for further construction. Thereafter, the respondent- Municipality issued a further notice to stop the work, on 08/01/2010, which was challenged before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. It is submitted that the Tribunal by order, dated 01/02/2010, allowed the appeal. Still, thereafter, a notice under Section 406(1) of the Kerala Municipality Act was issued by the W.P.(C). No.16073/2010 -:2:- Municipality alleging violation of Rule 4(2) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 as per Ext.P1. Ext.P2 is a further notice issued in the matter. Thereafter, the petitioner filed objections as per Ext.P3 on 17/03/2010. The petitioner was awaiting the final order to be passed in the matter and, since, further delay occurred, the petitioner filed Ext.P4 reminder. 2. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that so far the Municipality has not passed the final order. 3. There will be a direction to the respondent herein to finalise the proceedings by passing appropriate orders after considering the objections raised by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this Judgment. The petitioner will produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of this Judgment before the respondent for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. Sd/- (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms \\TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE