IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2008 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1930 W.P(C).No. 6328 of 2008(C) --------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- VIJAYAN, S/O. PONNUPILLAI, AGED 45 YEARS, SECRETARY, VARKALA MUNICIPALITY, VARKALA P.O., TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT, REPRESENTING VARKALA MUNICIPALITY. BY ADV. SRI.J.S.AJITHKUMAR RESPONDENT: ---------------- S. ASOK KUMAR, S/O. SADANANDAN, AGED 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT RESHMA, PRALAYAGIRI, THOKAD P.O., VARKALA, OWNER AMMU STUDIO, MAITHANAM TEMPLE ROAD, VARKALA. BY ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC SRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 6328 OF 2008 C ==================== Dated this the 19th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P6. Ext.P6 is an order passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions in Appeal No.512/07 filed by the respondents herein. By this order, the Tribunal set the Varkala Municipality ex-parte. Taking note of the fact that despite repeated orders, petitioner herein has not produced the files, Tribunal held that if the non production is willful, he is unfit to continue in the post and ordered that the Director of Urban Affairs be addressed for production of the file and to initiate action against the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the original file was produced before the Tribunal itself in connection with OP 132/07. It is stated that though the files were misplaced, it has now been recovered from the Tribunal itself and that the same has been incorporated in the proceedings in Appeal No.512/07. Since the factual position is as above, the purpose of the petitioner to have the file on record is seen accomplished. 2. As regards the observation of the Tribunal are concerned, counsel for the respondent points out that when he attempted to have WPC 6328/08 : 2 : proceedings initiated against certain unauthorised construction in his neighbourhood, the petitioner was remaining inactive. According to him, thereupon he had filed a writ petition before this court and even the High Court order was not complied with. It is stated that finally when he was led to a situation where he had no other option and even at that stage, instead of taking action against the unauthorized construction complained of, the petitioner initiated proceedings against the respondents herein. That notice was challenged before this court and it is stated that the notice was initially stayed by this court, but later the writ petition was disposed of and he was relegated to pursue the statutory remedy of appeal. It is contended that it was on that basis appeal No.512/07 was filed. Counsel submits that non production of the file was deliberate and the petitioner was always unwilling to comply with the Tribunal's order. Counsel also refers to Exts. P7 and P8 and justifiably contends that the facts stated there are also incorrect and that these documents were created for producing before this court. 3. From the facts as noticed and as pointed by the counsel for the respondents, this court also cannot approve the conduct of the petitioner and his conduct needs to be deprecated. But however, having WPC 6328/08 : 3 : regard to the fact that the files are now in place, I am inclined to take the view that from the action against the petitioner need not be continued. Therefore, it is ordered that the direction in Ext.P6 order of the Tribunal that action should be initiated against the petitioner will stand deleted. With the above direction, writ petition is disposed of. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp