IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 23370 of 2009(M)
1. MUHAMMED HAJI,
... Petitioner
2. ABDUL SAMAD,
Vs
1. THE SECRETARY,
... Respondent
2. P.NAJEEB,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.SANEESH KUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :17/08/2009
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C).No.23370 of 2009-M
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 17th day of August, 2009.
JUDGMENT
1.The petitioner was carrying out a construction.
The panchayat authorities concluded that the said
activity included certain illegal constructions.
Orders were issued to pull down that portion.
Petitioner filed an appeal against that before
the Tribunal for Local Self Government
Institutions. The Tribunal granted an interim
order staying the demolition order. Obviously,
the petitioner could not have carried on with the
construction thereafter, on the strength of that
stay order of the Tribunal.
2.At the instance of the private respondents, the
Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions
required the DDP, Kozhikode to conduct an
inspection and ensure that there is no further
WP(C)23370/09 -: 2 :-
construction. That was a reasonable way of looking
at the interim order issued by the Tribunal.
3.Later, the Tribunal allowed the petitioner’s
appeal against the demolition order as per Ext.P11
which is essentially a technical order taking the
view that due process was not followed in ordering
demolition. All that was said was that the
demolition order has been issued on proceedings
contrary to the statutory provisions. It was,
therefore, that the Tribunal had directed the
panchayat authority to initiate proceedings
afresh.
4.The aforesaid situation cannot be treated as one
whereby the Tribunal has given its seal of
approval to the construction activity being
carried on by the petitioner. The Tribunal did not
enter a finding that the construction was in
terms of the plan, permit and the rules.
5.Obviously, therefore, the petitioner could not
WP(C)23370/09 -: 3 :-
have carried on with the construction but had to
wait for the decision of the panchayat. In this
context, adverting to Exts.P9 and P10, all that
the learned Ombudsman has done is to ensure that
there is no further construction activity on the
strength of the interlocutory order issued by the
Tribunal. The issuance of a final order by the
Tribunal does not, in any manner, improve the case
in favour of the petitioner.
6.Ends of justice do not require the visitorial
jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with
Exts.P9 and P10 under Article 226 of the
Constitution.
In the result, the writ petition fails and the
same is accordingly dismissed.
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE.
Sha/280809