IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE TUESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2008 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 37895 of 2007(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ JAMALUDDIN THANGAL, UDARATHU VALAPPIL, EDAVILANGU DESOM, EDAVILANGU VILLAGE, KODUNGALLOOR. BY ADV. SRI.C.E.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, KODUNGALLOOR MUNICIPALITY, KODUNGALLOOR. 3. SRI.MUHAMMED HAJI, EDAVILANGU DESOM EDAVILANGU VILLAGE, KODUNGALLOOR. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR FOR R2 SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU SRI.JAGAN GEORGE SRI.K.A.NOUSHAD SRI.P.G.PRAMOD GOVT. PLEADER SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ---------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.37895 of 2007 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of March , 2008 JUDGMENT Under challenge in this Writ Petition is Ext.P12 order of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, whereby the Tribunal has set aside the order of the Secretary of the Municipality issued under Section 406 (1) of the Municipality Act on the various reasons stated therein. Even though Sri.C.E.Unnikrishnan, the learned counsel for the petitioner has addressed me very extensively and persuasively and I also feel that the approach of the Tribunal was rather technical, I am of the view, having regard to the well defined contours of this court's jurisdiction under Article 227 (and even under the certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226), it will not be possible to say that Ext.P12 is vitiated to the extent of warranting interference by this court in these jurisdictions. 2. Sri.M.P.Ashok Kumar, the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality submits that in obedience to the direction in WPC No.37895/2007 2 Ext.P12, the Municipality has initiated fresh proceedings under Section 406 (1) of the Act. Sri.Ashok Kumar placed before me a copy of the Notice No. PW2/10987/05 (BA No.164/05-06) dated 31.1.2008 issued to the third respondent. 3. Sri.Babu Joseph Karukapadath, the learned counsel for the third respondent would submit that what was issued to the third respondent was not a proper order under Section 406(1) of the Act. Responding to the above submission, the learned Standing counsel placed before me a copy of the reply which was given by the third respondent to the above order dated 31.3.2008. A reading of the reply will show that the third respondent has understood the order dated 31.1.2008 issued by the Municipality specifically invoking Section 406 (1) as an order under Section 406 (1). The request in the reply dated 3.3.2008 submitted by the third respondent is that in view of the pendency of the Writ Petition 37895/2007, time may be given to the third respondent for filing reply to the order under Section 406 (1). It is, therefore, idle for the third respondent to contend that even now the Municipality has not issued a order under Section 406 (1) of the Act to the third respondent. WPC No.37895/2007 3 Having regard to the history of the litigation between the parties, I am of the view that the Municipality shall expedite the proceedings re-initiated by order No.PW2/10987/05 (BA No.164/05-06) dated 31.1.2008. I repel the challenge against Ext.P12 and dispose of this writ petition directing the second respondent to expedite the proceedings now re-initiated under Section 406 (1) of the Act and finalise the same in accordance with law at the earliest and at any within three months from today. PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE. dpk