High Court Kerala High Court

N. Thankamony vs State Of Kerala on 25 February, 2010

Kerala High Court
N. Thankamony vs State Of Kerala on 25 February, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 760 of 2010(T)


1. N. THANKAMONY, SADAN SARA,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SECRETARY,

3. THE BUILDING INSPECTOR,

                For Petitioner  :DR.K.P.SATHEESAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.N.J.JOHNSON

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :25/02/2010

 O R D E R
                        ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                 -------------------------
                   W.P.(C.) No.760 of 2010 (T)
            ---------------------------------
           Dated, this the 25th day of February, 2010

                          J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P8 provisional order issued

under Section 406(1) of the Kerala Municipality Act.

2. The issue, according to the petitioner, is in relation to

changing of the roof of an existing building. Initially an order

adverse to the petitioner was passed, which was the subject matter

of Appeal No.797/2009 filed before the Tribunal for Local Self

Government Institutions. By Ext.P6 order, the order impugned

therein was set aside, but however with liberty to the authorities to

take fresh steps, if circumstances justify the same. It is seen that

pursuant thereof fresh notice was issued and Ext.P8 provisional

order has been passed.

3. On receipt of Ext.P8, the petitioner has filed her reply

also. There has not been any progress in the matter. In the

meanwhile, this writ petition has been field complaining that

unsustainable proceedings have been initiated against her, and as a

WP(C) No.760/2010
-2-

result of which the petitioner is prevented from changing the roof of

her existing building. Irrespective of the contentions raised, it is

seen that proceedings evidenced by Ext.P8 are pending before the

2nd respondent. Therefore, at this stage, what is required to be

done is that the 2nd respondent, who has issued Ext.P8 should

consider the matter in the light of Ext.P9 and pass orders thereon.

Therefore, I direct the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P8 and

pass orders thereon taking into account the contentions raised in

Ext.P9. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate,

within ten days of production of a copy of this judgment, along with

a copy of this writ petition.

This writ petition is disposed of as above.

(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg