IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 28111 of 2009(H)
1. M/S MANARCADU WINES, NADUVILAL
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS
... Respondent
2. THE THRISSUR CORPORATION
3. THE WORSHIPFUL MAYOR,
4. THE SECRETARY, THE THRISSUR CORPORATION,
For Petitioner :SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE
For Respondent :SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS,SC,THRISSUR CORPORATIO
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :07/10/2009
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J
...........................................
WP(C).NO. 28111 OF 2009
............................................
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009
JUDGMENT
The petitioner faces Ext.P9 issued on 10.9.2009 on the
basis of the report of Executive Engineer made on 7.9.2009. The
petitioner is called upon to vacate the premises on the ground
that the building in question is dangerous for human habitation.
The petitioner has placed Ext.P10 objection to Ext.P9. Having
regard to the nature of the objections taken in Ext.P10, it is
inappropriate that the petitioner is forced to quit without
consideration of those objections. I say this more particularly
because it appears that there are different other earlier matters
touching the building in question. Though the petitioner has also
made Ext.P11 before the appellate committee of the Corporation,
the decision of the first instance has to be taken by the authority
at the first instance. This is because Ext.P9 notice has been
issued presumably on the basis of facts disclosed by the report of
the Engineer. Therefore, it is the authority of the first instance
that has to consider the objections to the contents of Ext.P9,
Wpc 28111/2009 2
which could be treated only as tentative. Hence, it is ordered
that the consideration of Ext.P11 shall not be made, as of now,
and the petitioner can take recourse to that, if the Secretary of
the Corporation ultimately decides against the petitioner after
consideration of Ext.P10. To enable a complete hearing process,
it is ordered that the petitioner will be issued a copy of the report
of the Engineer, that is relied on in Ext.P9. Let a decision follow
after hearing the petitioner and if necessary, by permitting the
petitioner to require further release by way of site inspection etc.
At any rate, having regard to grounds stated in Ext.P9, it is
ordered that the proceedings shall be concluded by the Secretary,
within a period of one month from now. Until then, further
proceedings on the basis of Ext.P9 will stand deferred and it
would be treated as a notice only. All other issues left open. Writ
petition ordered accordingly.
THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE
lgk/8/10