High Court Kerala High Court

Dr. P.K.Vijachandran vs State Of Kerala on 29 November, 2010

Kerala High Court
Dr. P.K.Vijachandran vs State Of Kerala on 29 November, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 35527 of 2010(M)


1. DR. P.K.VIJACHANDRAN
                      ...  Petitioner
2. MANEYAMMA VIJAYAKUMAR,
3. VALSALA VIJAYAKUMAR,
4. P L ELSIE, W/O.LATE ARULAPPAN,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REP BY SECRETARY
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL

3. KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY

4. C.C. VARKEY

                For Petitioner  :SRI.RAJESH. K.RAJU

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN

 Dated :29/11/2010

 O R D E R
                         P.N. RAVINDRAN, J.
                      -------------------------------
                     W.P.(C) No.35527 of 2010
                      -------------------------------
          Dated this the 29th day of November, 2010

                            J U D G M E N T
            The   petitioners,     4 in number, are       residents of

Kalamassery Municipality.     They own different buildings situated in

different parcels of land. By Exts.P3, P5, P7 and P9 provisional orders

issued under Section 406(2) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, the

Secretary of Kalamassery Municipality has called upon them to show

cause why the canopies put up by them on the roof of their residential

buildings should not be demolished. Exts.P3, P5, P7 and P9 are under

challenge in this writ petition. In my opinion, the writ petition is bad

for misjoinder of causes of action. If the petitioners are aggrieved by

the separate notices issued to them in respect of their separate

buildings under Section 406(2) of the Kerala Municipality Act, they

ought to have challenged the same separately. Further, the orders

challenged are only provisional orders issued under Section 406(2) of

the Kerala Municipality Act. The petitioners can submit their

objections to the Secretary who is bound by law to consider the same

before passing final orders, in terms of Section 406(2) of the Kerala

Municipality Act. In such circumstances, I am constrained to hold that

the writ petition is pre-mature. Further, from the final order passed

under Section 406(2) of the Kerala Municipality Act, an appeal lies to

W.P.(C) No.35527 of 2010

2

the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions under Section 509

(6) of the Act. Therefore, for that reason also, I find no grounds to

entertain the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly

dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to submit

their objections to Exts.P3, P5, P7 and P9 provisional orders to the

Secretary of Kalamassery Municipality. If such objections are filed

within two weeks from today, the Secretary of Kalamassery

Municipality shall consider the same before passing final orders under

Section 406(2) of the Kerala Municipality Act.

P.N. RAVINDRAN,
JUDGE.

nj.