IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 5811 of 2011(B) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. RAMANI S.NINAN, W/O.LATE SUNNY NINAN, MANTHANATH HOUSE, OPPOSITE KSRTC BUS STAND, STADIUM CROSS ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 2. M.KURIAN NINAN, S/O.LATE SUNNY NINAN, MANTHANATH HOUSE, OPPOSITE KSRTC BUS STAND, STADIUM CROSS ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.KOSHY GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE CORPORATION OF COCHIN, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY. 2. THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, CORPORATION OF COCHIN, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE HEALTH INSPECTOR, CORPORATION COCHIN, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE BUILDING INSPECTOR, CORPORATION COCHIN, ERNAKULAM. 5. THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, CORPORATION COCHIN, ERNAKULAM. R1 TO R5 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.JUSTINE(KARIPAT)SC,COCHIN CORPN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.5811/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 1.2.2011 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. P2:- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD. 19.2.2011 ISSUED BY M/S. AJAX CONSTRUCTION COMPANY. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 5811 OF 2011 ------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2011 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P1 notice dated 1-2-2011, for a direction directing the respondents not to take any action as proposed in Ext.P1 and for other incidental reliefs. 2. Petitioners are owners of a tourist lodge known as 'Ninans Tourist Lodge' facing the KSRTC main bus stand at Ernakulam. Petitioners submit that the tourist lodge consists of two buildings of which one on the rear side was functioning prior to 1970 and the other in the year 1974. By Ext.P1 notice the 2nd respondent directed the petitioner to demolish the lodge building within a period of 15 days and to inform him, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 411 of the Kerala Municipality Act. It is pointed out that the said notice was issued without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and therefore Ext.P1 is in violation of the principles of natural justice. -2- W.P.(C).No.5811/2011 It is also pointed out that though reference of two reports of respondents 3 and 4 was made therein, no reports were prepared after inspection of the building. It is further pointed out that petitioners are unaware of the reports referred to in Ext.P1 and that copies of the same have not been furnished to them. Petitioners also contends that Ext.P1 notice issued is bad for non-application of mind in as much as the same proceeds there is only one lodge building while as a matter of fact, there are two buildings. Petitioners submit that the buildings are maintained properly and are in stable condition and that the buildings can be used in the coming years also. The contention of the respondents is that the buildings were found standing in a dangerous condition and that it may cause danger to the life and properties of the inhabitants of the buildings, besides the neighbours and general public. Accordingly, the petition is baseless. Petitioners produced Exts.P2 certificate from the construction company, which certifies that the condition of the building will remain as it is for at least another ten years in the -3- W.P.(C).No.5811/2011 normal course. Ext.P2 certificate shows that the building need not be demolished. The grievance of the petitioner is that even without calling for explanation and without hearing the petitioners, Ext.P1 notice was issued directing the petitioners to demolish the buildings within a period of 15 days. The petitioner submits that the buildings were constructed during 1970s and that the buildings are stable, so that it could remain for another two decades. Ext.P1 notice issued directing demolition of the buildings within 15 days, without hearing the petitioners and without serving the reports relied on by the respondents, requires re-consideration in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, Ext.P1 notice is quashed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to issue fresh notice to the petitioners calling upon them to show cause as to why their buildings shall not be demolished. Only after issuing fresh notice and affording an opportunity to the petitioners to submit their contentions, fresh decision shall be taken by the 2nd -4- W.P.(C).No.5811/2011 respondent. Before passing final orders by the 2nd respondent, the documents including the reports of the respondents 3 and 4 shall be served to the petitioners. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. kcv.