IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 10TH JANUARY 2011 / 20TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 33488 of 2010(I) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------- WIRELESS-TT INFO SERVICES LIMITED, REGISTERED OFFICE AT 5TH FLOOR, GOWRA TRINITY, CHIRAN FORT LANE, BEGUMPET,SECUNDERABAD-500 003 AND CIRCLE OFFICE AT J & CO CHAMBERS, MANIMALA ROAD, EDAPPALLY,COCHIN-24,THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR.SUDEVAN.V.D. BY ADV. SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. CHERTHALA MUNICIPALITY,CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA-688 552, REP. BY THE SECRETARY. 2. B.VINOD KUMAR, S/O.M.K.BALABADRAN, KRISHNA VILASAM, CMC -18,CHERTHALA,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 552 3. A.K.APPUKUTTAN,S/O.V.R.KUMARAN, ASARIVELIYIL,CMC -18,CHERTHALA,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 552. 4. THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL -SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS,TRIVANDRUM-695 001. 5. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE,ALAPPUZHA-688007. ADV. SRI.K.RAMANATHAN FOR R3 SRI.SATHISH NINAN FOR R2 SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW FOR R2 SRI.ARUN THOMAS FOR R2 SRI.JENNIS STEPHEN FOR R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR MR.R.RAMESH R4 & R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No. 33488/2010 APPENDIX EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 20.11.2008 EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 28.12.2009 EXHIBIT-P3: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 15.09.2009. EXHIBIT-P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3/3/2010 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 21.4.2010. EXHIBIT-P6: TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT-P7: TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF EXT.P6 DATED 21.4.2010. EXHIBIT-P8: TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 10.05.2010 EXHIBIT-P9: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER DATED 20.5.2010. EXHIBIT-P10: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 22.04.2010. EXHIBIT-P11: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.17363/2010 DATED 6.08.2010 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT-P12: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 24.9.2010. //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 33488 OF 2010 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of January, 2011. JUDGMENT The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. Alleging unauthorised construction of tower in Re Sy No.39/2 of Cherthala South Village the petitioner was served with a notice under Section 406 of the Kerala Municipality Act. The petitioner had challenged the same by filing W.P(C) No. 17363 of 2010. The said writ petition was disposed of as per Ext.P11 judgment. Taking note of the fact that the petitioner has already move for an application before the competent authority for regularisation of the alleged unauthorised construction this Court directed the respondents to keep in abeyance the order passed under Section 406 of the Kerala Municipality Act till orders are passed on the application for regularisation. Subsequently, after considering the application for regularisation made by the petitioner, Ext.P12 order has been passed on 24.09.2010. Evidently, as per Ext.P12, the request of the petitioner for regularisation of the alleged unauthorised construction has been rejected. It is challenging the said order W.P(C) NO. 33488 OF 2010 2 that this writ petition has been filed. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner the learned standing counsel for the first respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 and 3 and also the learned Government Pleader. 3. It is submitted on behalf of respondents that Ext.P12 is an appealable order. This fact is not disputed by the respondents. When an alternative efficacious remedy of appeal to redress the grievance against the impugned order is available the party shall be delegated to resort to such an appellate remedy going by the consistent view taken by this Court. Therefore, in view of the admitted position that Ext. P12 is an appealable order, I am inclined to dispose of this writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner to resort to the appellate remedy to redress the grievance against it within a period of three weeks from today. In case, such an appeal is preferred within the above stipulated time it shall be treated as an appeal preferred within the time limit and the appellate authority shall proceed to consider the same on merits. The interim order dated 4.11.2010 staying all further action pursuant to Ext.P12 will continue to be in force till orders W.P(C) NO. 33488 OF 2010 3 are passed on the appeal, in case an appeal is preferred as permitted above. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE mns