IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2009 / 15TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 28111 of 2009(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S MANARCADU WINES, NADUVILAL SHOPPING COMPLEX, ROUND WEST, THRISSUR, REP. BY ITS MANAGER, SHRI T.J. SHABU JOSE, AGED 28, S/O. JOSE T.C., CHIRAYANKANDATH, THAZHEKKADAN, KALLOOR, KALLOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE SRI.P.V.VARGHESE (KANJIRAMATTOM) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LOCAL SELF GOVT. DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE THRISSUR CORPORATION CORPORATION OFFICE, THRISSUR, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE WORSHIPFUL MAYOR, CORPORATION COUNDIL, THRISSUR CORPORATION THRISSUR. 4. THE SECRETARY, THE THRISSUR CORPORATION, CORPORATION OFFICE, THRISSUR. BY GP IV PRAMOD ADV. SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS,SC,THRISSUR CORPORATIO FOR R2 TO R4 SRI.LELLULAL T.G.THUNDATHIL FOR R2 TO R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 28111 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner faces Ext.P9 issued on 10.9.2009 on the basis of the report of Executive Engineer made on 7.9.2009. The petitioner is called upon to vacate the premises on the ground that the building in question is dangerous for human habitation. The petitioner has placed Ext.P10 objection to Ext.P9. Having regard to the nature of the objections taken in Ext.P10, it is inappropriate that the petitioner is forced to quit without consideration of those objections. I say this more particularly because it appears that there are different other earlier matters touching the building in question. Though the petitioner has also made Ext.P11 before the appellate committee of the Corporation, the decision of the first instance has to be taken by the authority at the first instance. This is because Ext.P9 notice has been issued presumably on the basis of facts disclosed by the report of the Engineer. Therefore, it is the authority of the first instance that has to consider the objections to the contents of Ext.P9, Wpc 28111/2009 2 which could be treated only as tentative. Hence, it is ordered that the consideration of Ext.P11 shall not be made, as of now, and the petitioner can take recourse to that, if the Secretary of the Corporation ultimately decides against the petitioner after consideration of Ext.P10. To enable a complete hearing process, it is ordered that the petitioner will be issued a copy of the report of the Engineer, that is relied on in Ext.P9. Let a decision follow after hearing the petitioner and if necessary, by permitting the petitioner to require further release by way of site inspection etc. At any rate, having regard to grounds stated in Ext.P9, it is ordered that the proceedings shall be concluded by the Secretary, within a period of one month from now. Until then, further proceedings on the basis of Ext.P9 will stand deferred and it would be treated as a notice only. All other issues left open. Writ petition ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/8/10