The competent authority must follow the mandatory procedure under the relevant statutes before issuing orders prohibiting construction activities.

These two writ petitions are connected and therefore, I am disposing of these two writ petitions by a common judgment.

2. The impugned orders in these writ petitions are one and the same. W.P.(C.) No. 458/2013 is filed by the Perinthalmanna Municipality and W.P.(C.) No. 30324/2012 is filed by a contractor.

3. I will narrate the facts in W.P.(C.) No. 458/2013 first.

4. The writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P1 order of the 1st respondent by which the construction of a fish market building carried on in Sy.No.100/2 of Perinthalmanna Village is prohibited invoking the provisions of the Land Utilization Order. It is submitted that the entire proceedings are liable to be quashed on the sole ground that no proceedings have been initiated under the Kerala Land Utilization Order . Ext.P4 is the original notice by which action was initiated under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 . It is submitted that therefore, it is evident that Ext.P1 has not been preceded by the mandatory requirement and procedure contemplated under the Kerala Land Utilization Order . Therefore, Ext.P1 is liable to be struck down as being violative of the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilization Order itself. It is further submitted that the land was acquired by the petitioner as early as in 2001 and all along, it was a dry land. There was full fledged fish market functioning in the said land is the further submission. Several buildings were existed for the purpose of functioning of the fish market and all these factors have not been taken into consideration while issuing Ext.P1 impugned order is the submission. The stand that there has been unauthorized conversion is meaningless and without any basis is the further submission. The land was a dry land and the buildings were originally existed before the fish market started functioning. It is submitted that the fish market was demolished pursuant to Ext.P2 sanction order. Further, it is submitted that have no application in so far as the land has all along been a dry land.

Therefore, this writ petition is filed with the following prayers :

“I. To call for the records leading to the issuance of Exhibits P1, examine its legality, propriety and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari.

II. To issue a writ of mandamus and to stay the operation of Exhibit P1 order and to permit the continuance of construction of the wholesale fish market tendered by the petitioner on BOT basis.

III. To pass any other and such other reliefs as this Honourable Court deems fit and proper to pass in the nature and circumstance of the case.

IV. To award the cost of this proceedings to the petitioner.” [sic]

W.P.(C.) No. 30324/2012 is filed with following prayers :A. “Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading up to Ext P6 and quash the same.

B. Any other relief which this Honourable Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.” [sic]

5. Ext.P6 in this writ petition is Ext.P1 in W.P.(C.) No. 458/2013. As per Ext.P6, the 1st respondent has asked the petitioner and the Perinthalmanna Municipality to stop the construction work namely construction of a modernized fish market on BOT basis as approved by the Government in Ext.P1 in the land belonging to the Municipality. According to the petitioner, the construction is being done with the approval of the Government and is nearing completion. At that stage, Ext.P6 is issued. Hence, this writ petition is filed.

6. When W.P.(C.) No. 30324/2012 came up for consideration on 18.12.2012, this Court passed the following order :

“Admit.

Learned Standing Counsel takes notice for R2. Urgent notice to R1.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the Apex Curt as per Ext.P2 is in force and therefore, the order now passed as per Ext.P6 cannot survive.

Prima facie, I am satisfied that the petitioner is entitled for an interim order. Learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality also submits that the proje