SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(Ker) 463

ANTONY DOMINIC
Thomas – Appellant
Versus
Kottayam Municipality, Kottayam – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:For the Petitioner:Denizen Komath, Advocate. For the Respondents:Siby Mathew, Advocate.

Judgment :-

The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P13(a) order, by which Ext.P13 application filed by the petitioner for condoning 141 days delay in filing an appeal was rejected by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions.

2. Facts of the case are that the petitioners filed an application for a building permit and at that stage they were issued Exts.P3 and P4 notices of demolition. Appeal before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institution was disposed of setting aside Exts.P3 and P4 and directing that fresh orders be passed. Petitioner submits that in pursuance to the appellate order, Ext.P5 was issued under Section 406(3) of the Municipalities Act and again the petitioners filed Ext.P6 appeal. The Tribunal set aside Ext.P5 reserving liberty to the respondent to pass fresh orders in the matter. Thereafter Ext.P8 notice was issued by the Municipality, in response to which Ext.P9 objection was filed. However, by Ext.P10 petitioners were ordered to demolish the structure.

3. The petitioners submit that they pursued the matter with the Municipality by filing Ext.P11 representation praying for recalling Ext.P10. As their request was not considered, they ap
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top