Point of Law: when two fact finding bodies have rendered their decisions taking into account the constructions carried out and the nature of violations, under normal and ordinary circumstances, the writ court would not be justified in interfering with the said factual findings.

JUDGMENT :

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Ext. P10 provisional order passed by the Secretary of the Pala Municipality dated 24.05.2010 under Section 406(1) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 ('Act, 1994' for short) directing the petitioner to remove the illegal constructions as is specified thereunder, Ext. P14 final order passed by the Secretary dated 23.11.2010 conforming Ext. P10 provisional order passed under Section 406(3) of the Act, 1994 and Ext. P16 order passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions in Appeal No. 1080 of 2010, whereby the appeal filed by the writ petitioner was dismissed confirming Ext. P14 order passed by the Secretary of the Municipality under Section 406(3) of the Act, 1994.

2. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

Petitioner, owner of an extent of 4 cents of property situated in re-Survey No. 56/33/14 (Block No. 80/6253) of Lalam Village, has carried out construction of a building as per Ext. P1 permit dated 11.06.2007 and Ext. P2 approved plan issued by the Secretary of the Pala Municipality. Ext. P3 is the site plan approved by the Secretary of the Municipality. Based upon Exts.P1 and P2, the petitioner completed construction of 2 floors and submitted a completion certificate before the Secretary, who after conducting site inspection, issued occupancy certificate and assigned building numbers, XXIII/859(1) and XXIII/859(2), evident from Ext. P5 building tax receipt. Thereafter, the 4th respondent Secretary of the Municipality issued Ext. P6 provisional order notifying that the building was constructed in violation of the Building Rules and pointed out the defects specifically in the said order. Thereupon, the petitioner has submitted Ext. P7 objection. However, as per Ext.P8, a final order was passed confirming the provisional order.

3. Being aggrieved by Ext. P8 order dated 02.06.2009, Appeal No. 606 of 2009 was preferred before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. The said appeal was allowed as per Ext. P9 setting aside Ext. P8 order dated 02.06.2009 and directed the Secretary to conduct local inspection and to verify whether there are unauthorised constructions in violation of the provisions of law.

4. The case projected by the petitioner is that without complying with the directions contained in Ext. P9 order of the Tribunal, Ext. P10 provisional order was passed and thereafter, without considering Ext. P11 objection submitted by the petitioner, the 4th respondent has passed Ext.P14 order dated 23.11.2010 after conducting a personal hearing.

5. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred before the Tribunal, and the Tribunal, as per Ext.P16 order, dismissed the appeal. It is, thus, challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Secretary of the Municipality and the Tribunal, the writ petition is preferred.

6. The paramount contention advanced by the petitioner is that Ext. P14 order passed by the Secretary of the Municipality is without taking into account Ext.P11 objection submitted by the petitioner in regard to the deficiencies pointed out in Ext.P10 provisional order and therefore, it is violative of the principles of natural justice and arbitrary and illegal.

7. That apart, it was contended that while passing Ext.P16 order, the Tribunal erroneously found that the petitioner has admitted before the 4th respondent about the alleged violation and according to the petitioner, he has never admitted so before the Secretary.

8. That apart, it is contended that Ext. P14 impugned order is nothing but a replica of Ext. P10 provisional order and the same was passed without assigning any reasons as to how the objections raised by the petitioner would not come into play refuting the defects noted by the Secretary.

9. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality submitted that in Ext.P10 provisional order dated 24.05.2010 passed under Section 406(1) of Act, 1994, the