Remanded

Kairali Residents Association v. the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institution

Kerala HC8 Jun 2012WP(C)/3173/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a Residents Association, challenged an order requiring demolition of a structure constructed without a building permit. The Court accepted the petitioner's undertaking to demolish the structure by end of December 2012 and temporarily stayed further proceedings until that date.

What did the court decide?

Further proceedings under Ext.P4 and Ext.P6 orders stayed till 31.12.2012; structure to be demolished thereafter.

Kairali Residents Association Vs the Tribunal for… — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/18TH JYAISHTA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 3173 of 2012 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

KAIRALI RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION, REGISTRATION NO.657/2009, EAST KIRTADS, CHEVAYUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, K.SHAJI, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O.CHANDRAN, RESIDING AT MANARAKKAL THODI, CHEVAYUR, KOZHIKODE.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.V.V.SURENDRAN, SRI.P.A.HARISH.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1.

¶11

2. THE KOZHIKODE CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY, CORPORATION BUILDING, BEACH ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 032.

¶12

3. THE SECRETARY, KOZHIKODE CORPORATION, CORPORATION BUILDING, BEACH ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 032.

¶13

*** ADDL. R4 IMPLEADED**

¶14

4. M. VIJAYAKUMAR, 33/4367, BALAKRISHNA BHAVAN, SUB STATION ROAD, CHEVAYUR, KOZHIKODE-673 017.

¶15

*** ADDL. R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A.3657/2012 DATED 09/04/2012.**

¶16

R2 & R3 BY ADVS. SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH, SC, CORPN. SRI.K.D.BABU, SC. ADDL. R4 BY ADVS. SMT.A.K.PREETHA, SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

rs.

¶19

WP(C).No. 3173 of 2012 (V)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶22

EXHIBIT-P1.	TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 23.10.2010.
EXHIBIT-P2.	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 406(2) OF THE MUNICIPALITY ACT ISSUED TO SMT.PRABHAVATHY.
EXHIBIT-P3.	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY MADE BY SMT.PRABHAVATHY DATED 17.05.2011.
EXHIBIT-P4.	TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 27.07.2011.
EXHIBIT-P5.	TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSOCIATION.
EXHIBIT-P6.	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 31.10.2011.
EXHIBIT-P7.	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 02.09.2011 ISSUED TO SMT.PRABHAVATHY BY THE REVENUE OFFICER UNDER THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P8.	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29.01.2012.

¶23

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

rs.

ANTONY DOMINIC,J

W.P.(C)No.3173 of 2012

¶29

Dated this the 08^th day of June, 2012

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for respondents also.

¶32

Petitioner, a Residents Association has approached

¶33

this Court challenging Ext.P6. Ext.P6 is an order passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions confirming an order passed by the Respondent Corporation in exercise of his powers under Section 406 (3) of the Kerala Municipality Act, requiring demolition of a structure constructed by the petitioner on the basis of a licence obtained from the landlady, Smt.Prabhavathi. Against the construction of a said structure, the additional 4^th respondent made a complaint to the Corporation and it was on that complaint, the proceedings under Section 406(3) of the Act came to be passed.

¶34

Although, various contentions have been raised in the pleadings, in Ext.P6 order there is a specific finding that the structure in question was constructed by the petitioner without

¶35

W.P.(C).No.3173/2012

¶36

: 2 :

¶37

obtaining a permit as contemplated under the Municipality Building Rules. The correctness of this finding is not disputed. If that be so, the structure in question is an unauthorized one and the order requiring its demolition cannot be said to be illegal for any reason justifying interference.

¶38

Realizing this difficulty, the counsel for the petitioner did not argue much on this point and he only sought indulgence of this Court, permitting retention of the structure till the end of the year on the undertaking that immediately thereafter, the structure will be demolished and removed.

¶39

Admittedly, the structure in question has been constructed by a Residents Association for its office purposes and for other cultural activities. The illegality on the basis of which its demolition is ordered is that it was constructed without obtaining a permit and not on any other ground. In such circumstances, even if the structure is allowed to retained till the end of the year, I do not think any prejudice will be caused to anyone.

¶40

W.P.(C).No.3173/2012

¶41

: 3 :

¶42

Therefore, in view of the undertaking given by the counsel for the petitioner that the structure in question will be removed immediately after 31.12.2012, I direct that further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4 order under 406(3) and Ext.P6 order of the Tribunal will be kept in abeyance till that date. It is made clear that in the event the petitioner does not remove the structure as undertaken, it will be open to the Secretary to remove the same using whatever force that is required for the same.

¶43

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶44

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶45

Kairali Residents Association v. the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institution

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kairali Residents Association v. the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institution

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.P.Henry Vs the Corporation of Kochi

Ajith Kumar Vs the Mavelikkara Municipality

Vijayan.E. Vs Kulathoor Grama Panchayat

Kalloorkad Grama Panchayath Vs M/S. Kalloorkad Merchants Association

Chandrasekharan Nair Vs the State of Kerala

Raveendran Pillai Vs West Kallada Grama Panchayath