IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 13TH JUNE 2011 / 23RD JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 15758 of 2011(T) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- RAJU ANTONY,S/O.ANTONY,KARAICKAL VEEDU, NEAR VEGETABLE MARKET, CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. CHANGANASSERY MUNICIPALITY,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, CHANGANASSERY – 686 101. 2. SECRETARY,CHANGANASSERY MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, CHANGANASSERY – 686 101. R1 & R2 BY ADVS. SRI.SIBY MATHEW,S.C. SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU, SRI.B.PREMNATH (E). THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/06/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.15758/2011-T: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.1565/1980 OF SRO, CHANGANASSERY DTD. 30/05/1980. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. E2-3212/11 DTD. 26/05/2011 ISSUED BY THE R.2. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.15758 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT This Writ Petition has been filed mainly challenging Ext.P2. Ext.P2 is admittedly, only a notice issued under Section 406(1) of the Kerala Municipality Act (for short 'the Act'), that carries a provisional decision. After arriving at a conclusion that the petitioner is effecting construction violating the provisions under the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, the petitioner was directed as per Ext.P2 notice to demolish the unauthorised construction effected by him. The petitioner was also required to offer explanation if any, as to why the provisional decision should not be made absolute. Ext.P2 is dated 26.5.2011. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Ext.P2 was received by the petitioner only on 4.6.2011. A perusal of Ext.P2 would reveal that the petitioner was given only three days time to offer his explanation. I am of the view that it is too short a period to offer his explanation considering the gravity of the issued involved in this case. There cannot be any dispute with respect to the fact that once a notice is W.P.(C) NO.15758/2011 2 issued under Section 406(1) of the Act, the competent authority has to finalise the same in terms of Section 406(3) of the Act after affording an opportunity to the concerned party. As already noticed hereinbefore, the time granted to the petitioner is too short to make an effective reply. Considering all these aspects, this Writ Petition is disposed of as hereunder:- In case the petitioner desires to offer his explanation in response to Ext.P2, he may do so within a period of 15 days from today. In case the petitioner submits such an explanation within the above stipulated time, the respondents shall consider the same in accordance with law and then finalise the proceedings under Section 406(3) of the Act. Till such a decision is taken, the respondents shall not take any coercive steps pursuant to Ext.P2. It is made clear that in case the petitioner fails to offer his explanation within the above stipulated time, it will be open to the respondents to pursue with further proceedings. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.15758/2011 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.15758/2011 4