J U D G M E N T

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Municipality.

2. Ext.P3 is a notice issued by the respondent Municipality requiring the petitioner to remove unauthorised construction. Against that order, petitioner filed Appeal No.544/11 to the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. In that appeal, Ext.P4 order was passed staying Ext.P3. Subsequently, the Municipality issued Ext.P5 asking the petitioner to stop the business that was carried on in the building mentioned in Ext.P3. Again alleging that Ext.P5 was not complied with, Municipality issued Ext.P6 order. While so, by Ext.P7 order dated 28th of September, 2011, Appeal No.544/11 filed by the petitioner against Ext.P3 was disposed of allowing the appeal and directing the Secretary to take fresh action in the manner as directed in para 9 of the said order. Accordingly, the Municipality issued Ext.P8 order under Section 406 (1) of the Kerala Municipality Act to which the petitioner filed Ext.P9 objection. It appears that in WPC.No.12423/12 :2:

the meanwhile, petitioner also made an application for regularisation of the construction.

3. When hearing