IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2011 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1933 WA.No. 728 of 2011 -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.8402/2011 Dated 06/04/2011 .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: ------------------------------ 1. ANANDAN.T.B, AGED 53 YEARSW, S/O.T.R. BHASKARAN, THAITHARA HOUSE, (VAISHNAVAM), KAVIL KADAVU, KODUNGALLUR-680 664, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. SANTHOSH.T.B, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.T.R. BHASKARAN, THAITHARA HOUSE, (VAISHNAVAM), KAVIL KADAVU, KODUNGALLUR-680 664, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.RAJA SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------- 1. KODUNGALLUR MUNICIPALITY, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY - 680 664. 2. THE SECRETARY, KODUNGALLUR MUNICIPALITY, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTICT - 680 664. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI. M.P. ASHOK KUMAR. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J. CHELAMESWAR, C.J & ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.A.No. 728 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT Antony Dominic, J. The appellants filed the Writ Petition aggrieved by Exhibit P15 notice issued by the second respondent. The facts of the case are that on the strength of a building permit obtained, the appellants commenced construction of a commercial building. On the ground that the construction was in deviation from the specifications in the building permit, the second respondent issued Exhibit P4 notice. In reply to Exhibit P4 notice, the appellants submitted Exhibit P5 explanation. That was considered and Exhibit P6 final order was passed requiring the appellants to demolish and remove the objectionable construction. 2. However, in the meanwhile, the appellants completed the construction and subsequently Exhibit P14 application was made to the respondents for the issuance of a completion certificate. On receipt of the said application, the Secretary of the Municipality issued Exhibit P15 communication rejecting the application and WA.728/11 2 informing the appellants that the application will be considered only after removal of the portion of the building constructed in violation of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules. It was challenging Exhibit P15, that the Writ Petition was filed. By the judgment under appeal, the Writ Petition was dismissed mainly for the reason that Exhibits P4 and P6 notices referred to above were never challenged and hence, have become final and therefore the Municipality cannot be faulted for rejecting the application for completion certificate. It is against this judgment, the appeal is filed. 3. It is not the case of the appellants that Exhibits P4 and P6 have not become final. Once this fact is accepted, the respondents could not have issued the completion certificate. This conclusion of the learned Judge does not call for any interference. 4. However, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to allow the appellants to file an appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore, we direct that it will be open to the appellants to file appeal against Exhibit P6 in terms of the provisions contained in Section 509 of the Kerala Municipality Act before the Tribunal for Local Self Government WA.728/11 3 Institutions. We also direct that if such an appeal is filed by the appellants within one month from today, the same will be considered by the Tribunal on merits. 5. Needless to say, till the disposal of the appeal to be filed by the appellants, no coercive action pursuant to Exhibits P4 and P6 referred to above will be initiated by the respondents. The Writ Appeal is disposed of as above. J.CHELAMESWAR, CHIEF JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE vgs