IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 760 of 2010(T) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- N. THANKAMONY, SADAN SARA, M.C. 31/481, PUNNATHALA SOUTH, KOLLAM. BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN MR.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR MR.M.R.JAYAPRASAD MR.P.MOHANDAS MR.MATHEW SUNNY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF KOLLAM, KOLLAM. 3. THE BUILDING INSPECTOR, CORPORATION OF KOLLAM, CORPORATION OFFICE, SAKTHIKULANGARA ZONE, KOLLAM. ADV. MS.K.R.DEEPA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.M.K.C.DAS, SC FOR KOLLAM CORPORATION THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.760 of 2010 (T) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 25th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P8 provisional order issued under Section 406(1) of the Kerala Municipality Act. 2. The issue, according to the petitioner, is in relation to changing of the roof of an existing building. Initially an order adverse to the petitioner was passed, which was the subject matter of Appeal No.797/2009 filed before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. By Ext.P6 order, the order impugned therein was set aside, but however with liberty to the authorities to take fresh steps, if circumstances justify the same. It is seen that pursuant thereof fresh notice was issued and Ext.P8 provisional order has been passed. 3. On receipt of Ext.P8, the petitioner has filed her reply also. There has not been any progress in the matter. In the meanwhile, this writ petition has been field complaining that unsustainable proceedings have been initiated against her, and as a WP(C) No.760/2010 -2- result of which the petitioner is prevented from changing the roof of her existing building. Irrespective of the contentions raised, it is seen that proceedings evidenced by Ext.P8 are pending before the 2nd respondent. Therefore, at this stage, what is required to be done is that the 2nd respondent, who has issued Ext.P8 should consider the matter in the light of Ext.P9 and pass orders thereon. Therefore, I direct the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P8 and pass orders thereon taking into account the contentions raised in Ext.P9. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within ten days of production of a copy of this judgment, along with a copy of this writ petition. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg