JUDGMENT

Dated this the 26th day of March 2021 This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e. the Corporation of Kochi as well as the Assistant Executive Engineer, Corporation of Kochi, Zonal Office, Palluruthy, to implement Ext.P15 decision of the Assistant Executive Engineer dated 25.04.2016. Apparently Ext.P15 order, is an order issued as per Section 406(3) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994.

2. The sum and substance of the contention advanced by the petitioner is that, an illegal construction was carried out by the 3rd respondent namely, one Vichithrakumar, S/o. Late Sukumaran, Rameswaram Village, Palluruthy, and thereupon petitioner has approached the Secretary/authorised officer of the Corporation of Kochi seeking removal of the illegal construction, no action was initiated, pursuant to which petitioner has approached this Court and secured Ext.P9 judgment in W.P.(C)No.28819/2011 to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, in the complaint filed by the petitioner.

3. Evidently, thereafter the 2nd respondent issued notice to the 3rd respondent namely, Ext.P11 as per Section 406(1) and 406(2) directing the 3rd respondent to file objection to participate in the proceedings. It is evident from Ext.P12 that the 3rd respondent has filed an objection dated 12.06.2015 it was thereafter that Ext.P15 decision was taken by the Assistant Executive Engineer directing the 3rd respondent to demolish the illegal construction, apparently under Section 406(3) of Act, 1994.

4. The case projected by the petitioner in this writ petition is that, inspite of earnest efforts made by the petitioner, the said order was not being implemented by the Corporation and it is officials.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.P.Chandrasekhar and the learned Standing Counsel for the Cochin Corporation Sri.K.Janardhana Shenay, and perused the pleadings and materials on record.

6. The discussion of facts made above would makes it clear that, pursuant to the complaint filed by the petitioner against illegal construction of the 3rd respondent, action was initiated by the authorised officer of the Cochin Corporation resorting to Section 406 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994. From Ext.P11 it is clear that, in accordance with the provisions of Section 406, the illegal construction is clearly pointed out and stated that petitioner has carried out a construction in front of the building in violation of Rule 24(3) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules,1999, without providing sufficient set back.

7. On understanding the situation, the 3rd respondent has filed Ext.P12 objection, and it was after considering Ext.P12 objection and providing sufficient opportunity to the parties that Ext.P15 order was passed under Sections 406(3) by which the authority confirmed the order passed in Ext.P11, which is the statutory scheme. So in my considered view, the action taken by the authorised officer of the Cochin Corporation was in accordance with the Scheme of Section 406 of Act, 1994 and in accordance with law.

In that view of the matter, there will be a direction to the 1st and 2nd respondents to implement Ext.P15 order in accordance with law, at the earliest, and at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE hmh APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXT. P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED PARTITION DEED NO.5038/1993.

EXT. P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE GIFT DEED DATED

19.02.2007.

EXT. P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE DATED

15.07.2008 IN O.S. NO. 408/207 OF THE COURT OF THE MUNSIFF OF KOCHI.

EXT. P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONERS HUSBAND UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.

EXT. P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED

28.07.2009.

EXT. P6 TRUE COPY OF PLAN SHOWING THE PROPERTIES OF THE PETITIONER AND THE

3RD RESPONDENT.

EXT. P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT TO THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 20.10.2011.

EXT. P8 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE

1ST RECEIPT OF EXT P