Statutory timelines for appeals under local government legislation cannot be bypassed by filing writ petitions after the period has expired.

JUDGMENT :

P.V. Kunhikrishnan, J.

This Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:

"i. issue a writ in the nature of certiorari calling for the records culminated in the issuance of Ext.P5 notice and quash the same.

ii. Issue an order staying all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P5 iii. issue such other order or direction, as this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper to grant."

[SIC]

2. The petitioner herein is the absolute owner in possession of a property comprised in re survey No. 722 of Kollam East Village, having an extent of 1 Are 65 Sq Meters. The 2^nd respondent is the petitioner's neighbour. The 2^nd respondent’s residential property and the petitioner's property are separated and demarcated by a compound wall, is the submission. It is the case of the petitioner that there is a small toilet situated within the property of the petitioner, which is used by him and his family members. The petitioner states that the toilet was constructed in 1990, and he and his family have been using it for the last 34 years without any hindrance or obstruction. While so, the 2^nd respondent, who is inimical to the petitioner, had lodged a complaint before the 1^st respondent, Panchayat, claiming that the toilet inside the petitioner's property is an illegal construction, is the submission. The 1^st respondent had passed a conditional order dated 24.03.2022 under Section 406 (1) and (2) of the Kerala Municipality Act , 1994 (for short, the Act 1994), directing the petitioner to demolish the toilet constructed. Petitioner submitted a reply to the same. Subsequently, the Ext.P2 order was passed on 08.08.2022, confirming the conditional order. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a reply to Ext.P2. Based on this reply, another hearing and property inspection were held. But the same was rejected and again issued Ext.P3 order on 18.08.2023 to demolish the illegal construction. Thereafter, the 1^st respondent once again issued Ext.P4 notice dated 09.10.2023 for hearing the matter based on a direction from the honourable Mayor, and the petitioner appeared and gave his statement along with all supporting documents, is the submission. But the 1st respondent issued Ext. P5 demolition notice. Hence, this Writ Petition is filed.

3. Heard counsel for the petitioner, Standing Counsel appearing for the Municipality and also the Counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent. 

4. Admittedly, Ext.P2 is a final order passed under Section 406 (3) of the Act 1994, confirming the provisional order passed under Section 406 (2) of the Act 1994. of the Act 1994 is extracted hereunder:

“406. Demolition or alteration of building work unlawfully commenced, carried on or completed.—

(1) Where the Secretary is satisfied-

(i) that the construction, reconstruction or alteration of any building or digging of any well-

(a) has been commenced without obtaining the permission of the Secretary or in contravention of the decision of the Council; or

(b) is being carried on, or has been completed otherwise than in accordance with the plans or specifications on which such permission or decision was based; or

(c) is being carried on, or has been completed in breach of any of the provisions of this Act or any rule or bye-law or order made or issued thereunder or any direction or requisition lawfully given or made under this Act, such rule, bye-law or order; or

(ii) that any alteration required by any notice issued under section 395 has not been duly made; or

(iii) that any alteration of or addition to any building or any other work made or done for any purpose in or upon any building has been commenced or is being carried on or has b