IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 20TH MAY 2010 / 30TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 13724 of 2010(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.NASAR,S/O.KUNJU BAVA RAWTHER, VALIYAPARAMBIL,PERUNNA EAST, CHANGANASSERY-1. BY ADV. SRI.H.HAMZA ROWTHER SRI.V.K.PEERMOHAMED KHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- CHANGANACHERRY MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE,CHANGANACHERRY. ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW, SC, FOR R1 SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON ON 20/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 13724 of 2010 A P P E N D I X PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED BY THE MUNICIPALITY EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT MUNICIPALITY EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT MUNICIPALITY EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT MUNICIPALITY EXT.P5 THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE ROAD MARGIN AND THE SHED SITUATING IN FRONT OF THE SHOPROOM OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6 COPY OF THE SKETCH SHOWING THE LOCATION AND THE PLACES WHERE THE CONCERNED BOARDS ARE FIXED. RESPONDENTS' EXTS: NIL \\TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.13724/2010-M ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 20th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T The challenge is against Ext.P4, a notice issued by the Municipality directing the petitioner to remove the articles as well as other structures which have been erected by the petitioner in front of the shop extending to the public pathway. 2. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit in the matter. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Municipality, during the pendency of the writ petition, implemented Ext.P4 and the structures have been demolished also. 5. The learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality submitted that the petitioner has got a remedy to approach the Tribunal for the Local Self Government Institutions in the matter. If the petitioner is so advised, he can challenge Ext.P4 before the Tribunal for the Local Self Government Institutions. If any separate order has been passed by the Municipality prior to the alleged implementation of Ext.P4, then the copy of the same will be W.P.(C). No.13724/2010 -:2:- communicated to the petitioner within two weeks. The writ petition has been pending from 22/04/2010 onwards. The period during which the writ petition was pending will be excluded for reckoning the period of limitation for filing the appeal. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms