IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 904 of 2010(K)
1. RAJALAKSHMI, D/O.NATARAJAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY,
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY,
For Petitioner :SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :21/01/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 904 OF 2010 (K)
=====================
Dated this the 21st day of January, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P3, an order
requiring the petitioner to demolish the structure mentioned
therein. The main contention raised by the counsel for the
petitioner is that contrary to what is stated in Ext.P3, neither the
provisional order under Section 406(1) nor the final order under
Section 406(3) were served on her.
2. The case was adjourned for the instruction of the
learned standing counsel appearing for the Municipality and an
opportunity was given to produce documents to prove that
provisional order and the final order were served on the
petitioner. However, no document whatsoever could be
produced, and therefore, this Court is led to think that what the
petitioner contends is factually correct. In view of the above,
Ext.P3 order in the form in which it is issued cannot be sustained.
3. Having regard to the fact that even 406(1) provisional
order was not served on the petitioner, it is directed that Ext.P3
will be treated as provisional order under Section 406(1) of the
WPC 904/10
:2 :
Municipalities Act and within two weeks from today, it will be open
to the petitioner to file reply thereto. Thereafter, with notice to the
petitioner final orders in the matter will be passed and
communicated to her.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp