IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2009 / 10TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 32986 of 2005(B) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ P. SHOBHANA @ MANJERIKANDI SHOBHANA, W/O. RAVEENDRAN, RESIDING AT SHOBANAS, NEAR RAILWAY MUTHAPPAN TEMPLE, THAVAKKARA, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE MR.KAUSER EDAPPAGATH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE SECRETARY, KANNUR MUNICIPALITY, MUNCIPAL OFFICE, KANNUR. 2. THE KANNUR MUNICIPAITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KANNUR. ADV. MR.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT No representation. Parties called. Absent Dismissed for default. 01/07/2009 SD/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE TRUE COPY P. A. TO JUDGE TSS ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.32986 of 2005 (B) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 27th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P8, P13 & P14, which require the petitioner to remove a bunk, which has been constructed by her. 2. According to the petitioner, the bunk formed a part of the plan approved by the Municipality and therefore, the order requiring its demolition is illegal. By orders of this Court dated 15/09/2009 & 10/12/2009, Shri.U.Muhammed, M/s.U.Muhammed and Associates, Architects, who prepared Ext.P11 plan, was directed to inspect the building in question and file an affidavit as to whether all structures, which were required to be demolished in terms of Ext.P11 plan and permit have been pulled down. In compliance thereof, he has inspected the premises in question on 04/01/2010 and has filed an affidavit dated 11/01/2010 stating that though the building has been constructed in terms of the plan, the bunk in question at site does not form part of the plan. He also states that WP(C) No.32986/2005 -2- the bunk was not mentioned in the sanctioned plan nor in the completion plan, and that there was no bunk at the time of submission of completion plan. In the light of the averments made in the above affidavit, the impugned orders cannot be faulted. Therefore, the writ petition is only to be dismissed, and I do so. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg