IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 6039 of 2009(Y) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ZAKHEER AHAMMED, S/O.P.R. AHAMMED KHAN, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT PADIPPURAYIL HOUSE, PERUNNA EAST KARA, POOCHIMUKKU,CHANGANASSERY VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.T.JINS SRI.SOJAN PAVIYANOSE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CHANGANASSERY MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. M.S. ABDUL HAMEED, S/O. SAYED MOHAMMED RAWTHER, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT MURIKKUVELIPPARAMBIL HOUSE, (NISHIM MANZIL), PERUNNA EAST KARA, I.C.O. JUNCTION, CHANGANASSERY VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF THE LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW FOR R1 SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU FOR R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.6039 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 25th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Exts.P2, P3 and P7 orders issued by the 1st respondent Municipality. Ext.P2 is a provisional order for demolition of the petitioner's building. Ext.P3 is the final order dated 25.1.2008 passed pursuant to Ext.P2, in which the petitioner was directed to demolish the construction made by him, which has been allegedly made deviating from the approved plan. Ext.P7 is the consequential order dated 28.1.2009 appointing an officer of the Municipality to effect demolition. As such, the petitioner is basically challenging Ext.P3 order dated 25.1.2008 passed more than a year ago. Admittedly the petitioner has not challenged Ext.P3 in an appeal, although the petitioner had got a right of appeal against Ext.P3 as provided under the Kerala Municipality Act. The only explanation offered by the petitioner for not challenging Ext.P3, immediately after receipt of the same is that the Municipality assured the petitioner that the same would not be implemented. The learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality disputes the same. The petitioner could not offer any evidence whatsoever regarding any such assurance. Another reason stated by the counsel for the petitioner is that O.S.No.33/2008 before the Munsiff's Court, Changanassery, was pending in respect of the 2 construction. A copy of the plaint in that original suit is produced as Ext.P5 in the writ petition. I find that the same was filed by one Mr.M.S.Abdul Hameed against the petitioner and the Municipality, for injunction restraining the petitioner herein from doing any kind of further construction work in the building in question. The pendency of that suit cannot be a reason for not challenging Ext.P3 at the appropriate time. As such, the petitioner is guilty of unexplained delay and laches. Therefore, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge