IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2011 / 14TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 3596 of 2011(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ SUBAITHA BEEVI, AGED 58 YEARS, W/O.N.MUHAMMED HUSSAIN KHAN, RAFEEKA MANZIL, KAMALESWARAM, MANACAUD PO,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SMT.C.G.BINDU SMT.C.G.AJITHA RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. CORPORATION OF TRIVANDRUM, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN 695001 2. TOWN PLANNING OFFICER,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION,THIRUVANATHAPURAM. PIN 695001 R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MANOJ KUMAR, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.3596 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated 3rd February, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the owner in possession of a commercial building bearing building No.T.C.28/2261 of the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation comprised in Survey Nos.997/B-1 and 996/C-2-1 of Vanchiyoor Village. On the strength of building permit granted by the Corporation the petitioner has effected construction of a double storied building. Thereafter, when the petitioner commenced construction of the second floor, a notice has been issued by the Corporation alleging unauthorised construction. The steps taken by the respondent Corporation under section 406 of the Kerala Municipality Act (for short `the Act') led to a number of litigations. Ext.P11 dated 9.11.2010 was issued by the first respondent under 406 of the Act. That was challenged before this Court in W.P.(C)No.34909 of 2010. After holding that the challenge against Ext.P11 is premature this Court granted the petitioner liberty to file objection against the said provisional order and directed the first respondent to consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon. Further it is observed in Ext.P12 as hereunder:- “If the petitioner is aggrieved by the final order WP(C).No.3596/2011 2 passed by the Secretary under section 406 of the Act, it will be open to her to challenge the same in appeal before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions.” In terms of the directions in Ext.P12 judgment, Ext.P16 final order has been passed. It is challenging Ext.P16 final order dated 5.1.2011 that this writ petition has been filed. 2. Indisputably, an appeal under section 509(6) of the Act will lie against Ext.P16. That apart, as is obvious from the above extracted portion, as per Ext.P12 this Court specifically observed that in case the petitioner is aggrieved by the final order passed after hearing the objection against Ext.P11 provisional order, it would be open to the petitioner to challenge the same before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. In view of the said position, I am of the view that the petitioner cannot maintain this writ petition. However, obviously, to redress the grievance, it will be open to the petitioner to resort to the statutory remedy available against Ext.P16. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner apprehends coercive steps from the part of the respondents including demolition of the building in question. In view of the said circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions to assail Ext.P16 in accordance with law. To WP(C).No.3596/2011 3 enable the petitioner to prefer such an appeal against Ext.P16, two weeks time is granted. It will also be open to the petitioner to file a petition for stay of implementation of Ext.P16 along with the appeal. Till orders on such a petition, if filed within the above stipulated time, is passed by the appellate authority, no coercive steps including demolition of the construction in question shall be effected by the respondents. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS // True copy // P.S. to Judge