The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Municipality's actions must be justified and in accordance with the provisions of the statute and rules, and that building violations should be assessed for their impact on public safety.

Vinod Chandran,J:

The appellant laments that his attempt to construct a three-storeyed building in the property owned by him has been successfully thwarted by the respondent-Municipality, on extraneous considerations, despite a building permit having been issued to him as early as on 08.06.2007 [Exhibit P1].

2. The appellant was issued with Exhibit P1 building permit for construction of a commercial building with Ground Floor, 1st Floor and 2nd Floor and a staircase cabin in Survey No.276/5-3, 5-4, 5-8 and 5-9. The plan of the building [Exhibit P2] is also appended with the permit. While the construction was going on, the 4th respondent herein raised a complaint and also filed a suit; and, on that ground, Exhibit P3 notice dated 01.02.2008 was issued by the Municipality, which effectively was a stop memo directing the construction to be stopped. The appellant approached this Court, obtained a stay at his risk, as is evidenced from Exhibit P4, which writ petition eventually was disposed of by Exhibit P5, directing the appellant to approach the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions [hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"].

3. On the date of Exhibit P5, i.e. 31.03.2008, the appellant was accosted with another notice by the Municipality of even date; Exhibit P6. Exhibit P6 raised violation of the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 [for brevity "Rules of 1999']. The appellant, hence, filed an appeal against Exhibit P3 notice as permitted by Exhibit P5 judgment and Exhibit P6 notice issued on the same date as Exhibit P5 judgment. The appeal at Exhibit P7 was considered by the Tribunal by Exhibit P8 order.

4. The ground in Exhibit P3 notice, of a boundary dispute between the appellant and the 4th respondent, was found by the Tribunal to be not a valid reason to prohibit the construction carried on by the appellant under a valid permit. The Tribunal also found that no grounds as specified in Section 408(1) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 [for brevity "Municipality Act"] was alleged; nor were any such grounds raised in the written statement filed before the Tribunal. Exhibit P3 hence, was set aside. As to the notice dated 31.03.2008, it was found that though violation of the provisions of the Rules of 1999 was alleged, the fact remains that there was a valid permit issued by the Municipality and no attempt is made under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1999 for suspension or revocation of the permit.

5. The Tribunal's order at Exhibit P8 is dated 05.07.2008. Two months thereafter, the Municipality again issued Exhibit P9 notice, purportedly under Rule 16, finding violation of the provisions of the Rules of 1999 in granting the permit. Simultaneous provisional order and notice under Section 406 of the Municipality Act at Exhibit P10 was issued. The appellant represented before the Municipality and, eventually, approached the Tribunal again. The Tribunal, by Exhibit P14 order, found that the provision order issued under Section 406(1) of the Municipality Act does not show the grounds under which the appellant has been directed to demolish the construction already made. It was found that there was no proper notice issued under Section 406(2) of the Municipality Act calling for objections. On the above grounds, the said provisional order, produced herein at Exhibit P10, was found to be unsustainable. As to the stop memo issued, again it was noticed that there were no grounds stated in the said stop memo to bring it under Section 408 of the Municipality Act. The order only indicated that the permit was not properly issued. The stop memo produced at Exhibit P9 was also found to be unsustainable The stop memo was refused to be upheld even as a notice under proviso to Rule 16 of the Rules of 1999, for reason of no opportunity being offered for submitting objection. The Municipality was given liberty to initiate fresh proceedings. The Tribunal's order is dated 02.11.2008.

6. Again by Exhibit P15 dated 14.0