IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2010 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 12564 of 2010(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- ANDREW, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.IRANIMOS, PALLISSERY HOUSE CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR SMT.P.A.ANITHA RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- CHALAKUDY MUNICIPALITY REP BY ITS SECRETARY. SRI.M.P.ASOK KUMAR, SC FOR MUNICIPALITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 12564 OF 2010 (U) ===================== Dated this the 8th day of April, 2010 J U D G M E N T Heard both sides. 2. The prayer sought in the writ petition is to quash Ext.P12 and to direct the respondent to pass orders on Ext.P5 application. Although the petitioner has submitted Ext.P5 as early as in 2001 for regularising an unauthorised construction, that application was not considered. When coercive action was taken, he approached this Court and obtained Ext.P7 judgment directing consideration of the application. 3. Despite the judgment, the application was not considered. This was for the reason that the application was misplaced in the Municipality. However, petitioner was asked to produce a copy of the application, which the petitioner did. Even thereafter, orders were not passed. When the petitioner pursued the matter, he was again asked to produce a copy of the application, and on that occasion, petitioner sought time for production of a copy of the application. 4. Without awaiting for the petitioner to produce copy of WPC No. 12564/10 :2 : Ext.P5, Ext.P12 order has been passed requiring the petitioner to remove the unauthorised construction. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition has been filed. 5. A reading of Ext.P12 shows that the reason for passing such an order is that the petitioner did not produce a copy of Ext.P5. If as stated by the petitioner, he has filed the original and produced copy on one occasion, I cannot find fault with the petitioner. 6. Be that as it may, having regard to the fact the application filed by the petitioner is misplaced in the Municipality, in order to give a quietus to the whole issue, I direct the petitioner to file a fresh application as provided under Rule 143 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules. It is directed that such application shall be filed at any rate within 3 weeks from today. If an application is filed as above, the Secretary shall consider the same and pass orders thereon within 3 weeks thereafter. It is directed that in the meanwhile, further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P12 shall not be initiated against the petitioner. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp