Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 37429
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.S. DIAS, J
DAMODARAN.K.K. – Appellant
Versus
PERUMBAVOOR MUNICIPALITY – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 22117 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN, SMT.SIKHA S.NAIR, SMT.JUBAIRIYA T.
For the Respondents: SC SRI MATHEW B KURIAN
Court emphasizes the need to pursue alternative statutory remedies before resorting to writ petitions; ruling preserves petitioner's rights to appeal.
Headnote:The Kerala Municipality Act was invoked by the second respondent to issue an order against the petitioner regarding alleged unauthorized construction. The petitioner, a homeowner, disputes the legality of the order. The court declines to entertain the writ petition due to the alternative remedy available. The petitioner retains the right to challenge the order before the Tribunal, maintaining the deferment of Ext.P4 until a stay petition is resolved.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges demolition order. (Para 2) |
| 2. hearing conducted for the parties. (Para 3) |
| 3. order issued under the kerala municipality act. (Para 4) |
| 4. alternative remedy exists via tribunal appeal. (Para 5) |
| 5. writ petition dismissed but allows future appeal. (Para 6) |
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 19th day of June, 2025 The writ petition is filed to quash Ext.P4 order passed by the 2nd respondent.
2. The petitioner is the owner of a residential building situated within the 1st respondent ― Municipality. Due to a major leak in the terrace of the house, the petitioner had erected a truss roof. Immediately, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P3 letter alleging that the work was an unauthorised construction. After that, the 2nd respondent passed Ext.P4 order, directing the petitioner to demolish the truss roof. Ext.P4 order is illegal and arbitrary, and is liable to be quashed.
3. Heard; the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
4. Ex.P4 order has been passed by the 2nd respondent invoking his powers under the Kerala Municipality Act .
5. An order passed by the second respondent is appealable to the Tribunal for Local Self-Government Institutions. (‘Tribunal’, in short).
6. In light of the alternative statutory remedy available to the petitioner, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition.
In the above-mentioned circumstances, I dismiss the writ petition, but by reserving the right of the petitioner to challenge Ext.P4 order before the Tribunal, constituted under Section 271S of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 , with a delay petition and stay petition, within four weeks from today. If the appeal is filed within the prescribed time along with the delay petition and the stay petition, the Tribunal shall consider the appeal and petitions, in accordance with law, on their merits and as expeditiously as possible. Until orders are passed on the stay petition, the implementation of Ext.P4 order shall stand deferred.
