IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 34281 of 2010(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DEVIKA VISWANATH, W/O.P.R.VISWANATHA MARAR 'KRISHNA',49/2687,TAGORE NAGAR, PONNETH TEMPLE ROAD, KADAVANTHRA,COCHIN-20 BY ADV. SRI.S.SHARAN SRI.A.D.SHAJAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. COCHIN CORPORATIN, O/O.THE COCHIN EAST ZONAL OFFICE,VYTTILA, COCHIN-19,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE ASST.EXE.ENGINEER, CORPORATION OFFICE, P.B.NO.1016,VYTTILA REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM,COCHIN-19 MR.PRAVEEN K.JOY, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 34281 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T Ext.P5 and Ext.P7 orders issued by the Secretary of Cochin Corporation under section 406(3) of the Kerala Municipality Act calling upon the petitioner to remove the unauthorised construction on the second floor of a residential building is under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner contends that Ext.P5 preliminary order was passed based on a complaint filed by one P.S.Reghu and that failure to furnish a copy of the complaint based on which Ext.P5 preliminary order was passed has vitiated the entire proceedings. 2. A reading of Ext.P5 preliminary order would indicate that the petitioner was informed that the structure put up by her in the second floor of the building using Aluminium sheet and steel trusses, is an unlawful construction. The petitioner does not dispute the said fact. Her contention in Ext.P6 reply is that she had paid tax for the additional construction. She has however no case that the additional construction was put up with the permission of the Corporation or that it is an approved structure. The petitioner is well aware of the fact that Ext.P5 preliminary order was issued in WPC No.34281/2010 2 respect of an unauthorised construction in the second floor of the building. The petitioner admits having put up the said structure. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that Ext.P7 final order cannot be said to be vitiated for the reason that a copy of the complaint based on which Ext.P5 preliminary order was passed was not served on the petitioner. Further, Ext.P7 is an appealable order. An appeal lies from Ext.P7 to the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. For reasons best known to her, the petitioner has not chosen to invoke that remedy. I therefore find no grounds to entertain this writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps WPC No.34281/2010 3 WPC No.34281/2010 4