IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2011 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 12728 of 2011(M) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- RATHEESH.P.H, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O. LATE HARIHARAN, POOZHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PERUMBADAPPU PAI ROAD, COCHIN – 6. BY ADV. SRI.BASIL JOY. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE CORPORATION OF COCHIN, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, COCHIN - 652 035. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. A.J. VARGHESE, R2 BY ADVS.SMT.SAREENA GEORGE,S.C, SRI. P.K. SOYUZ, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.12728 of 2011 ---------------------------- Dated 2nd June, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the owner in possession of 2 ½ cents of property comprised in Survey No.1008/1 of Edakochi Village. The second respondent issued a notice under section 406(1) of the Kerala Municipality Act (for short `the Act') alleging that the petitioner has effected construction in deviation from the approved plan and required the petitioner to demolish the illegal and unauthorised construction. He was also asked to show cause why appropriate follow up action should not be taken based on Ext.P2 notice. On receipt of Ext.P2, the petitioner has submitted Ext.R2(B) reply. Going by the provisions of the Act, when once an action has been initiated under section 406(1) of the Act, it has to be finalised in terms of the provisions under section 406(3) of the Act. The petitioner has already shown his cause on receipt of Ext.P2 notice. Necessarily, the same shall have to be taken into consideration before finalising the procedures initiated as per Ext.P2. The apprehension of the petitioner is that before its finalisation, after taking into account the explanation given by the petitioner after the receipt of Ext.P2, the respondents may take coercive steps to demolish the alleged unauthorised construction. In view of the said position obtained in this WP(C).No.12728/2011 2 case, this writ petition is disposed of as hereunder:- The respondents shall finalise the proceedings initiated as per Ext.P2 taking note of Ext.R2(B) explanation submitted by the petitioner on receipt of Ext.P2, in accordance with law. Before finalising the proceedings the petitioner shall also be afforded with an opportunity of being heard. The alleged unauthorised construction shall not be demolished before finalising the proceedings initiated as per Ext.P2. Needless to say that even the requirement to demolish the same would depend upon the final outcome of the aforesaid proceedings. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS // true copy // P.S. to Judge