IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 9662 of 2009(C)
1. MUHAMMED,S/O.IBRAHIM,AGED 45 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. NAZER,S/O.IBRAHIM,AGED 40 YEARS,
Vs
1. THE SECRETARY,PERUMBAVOOR MUNICIPALITY,
... Respondent
2. THE CHAIRMAN,PERUMBAVOOR MUNICIPALITY,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.ALI
For Respondent :SRI.V.M.KURIAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
Dated :23/07/2009
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J
...........................................
WP(C).NOs.9662 & 20332 OF 2009
............................................
DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF JULY, 2009
JUDGMENT
The earlier among the captioned writ petitions is filed by the
petitioners when proceedings were initiated against them for
alleged violation of permit and plan sanctioned for a construction
activity. There was an existing building in the land in question. It
is stated that the petitioner applied for change of roof and also
for putting up a first floor. This court retained that writ petition
herein as per interim order dated 25.3.2009 issued in WP(C)9662
of 2009, requiring the final order that may be issued after
considering the objections, to be placed before this court. The
Municipality has placed it in WP(C)9662 of 2009.
2. WP(C)20332 of 2009 is filed challenging the aforesaid
final order.
3. The controversy between the parties appear to be one
generating adjudication of mixed question of facts and law. I say
this because the Municipality alleges that the petitioner has gone
beyond the bounds of the original plinth of the ground floor and
Wpc 9662/2009 2
has put up a construction in the rear of the original structure and
that this is in violation of the plan and permit. This is disputed by
the petitioner, who also refute the stand of the Municipality that
the roof of the ground floor is perched at a level higher than that
which is originally sanctioned. Obviously therefore, the matter
can be resolved before the statutory authority viz, Tribunal for
Local Self Government Institutions.
4. The petitioners however pointed out that they have been
repeatedly going over to the Tribunal and also to this court and
getting orders in their favour. However, to a pointed query by
this court as to why the petitioners cannot now seek relief from
the Tribunal, it is stated by learned counsel for the petitioners
that every order of the Tribunal is followed by a subsequent
statutory proceedings by the Municipality. This I think is not the
answer to any sustainable skipping of jurisdiction under the
statutory provisions.
For the aforesaid reasons, it is ordered that the final order
against the petitioner will stand suspended for a period of three
weeks, enabling the petitioner to file statutory appeal/revision
against the same and seek relief from the Tribunal for Local Self
Wpc 9662/2009 3
Government Institutions. This order of stay is only as against
demolition and would not enable the petitioners to carry on with
the construction. All issues on merits left open.
THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE
lgk/23/7