Municipalities must consider all relevant expert reports in safety decisions for public structures, ensuring due process.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“i. issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction calling for the records leading to Exhibits P9 order and Exhibit P11 notice and to quash the same.

ii. dispense with the production of English translation of vernacular documents iii. grant such other relief’s which this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”[SIC]

2. Petitioners are the tenants in the shop rooms owned by the 4^th respondent. The 4^th respondent sought demolition of the said shop rooms alleging imminent danger by filing W.P.(C) No.24963 of 2024. This Court disposed of the above Writ Petition with a direction to the 3^rd respondent to decide Ext.P5 representation in that Writ Petition after hearing the parties and considering Ext.P2 expert report. It is the case of the petitioners that the 3^rd respondent appointed another engineer from the Government Engineering College, Thrissur to report regarding the stability of the building. The engineer from the Government Engineering College, Thrissur submitted a report before the 3^rd respondent. But a copy of the same was not given to the petitioners in spite of Ext.P6 application, is the contention. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed W.P.(C) No. 43682 of 2025 before this Court for seeking a copy of the engineer’s report from the Government Engineering College, Thrissur. On 21.11.2025, when the above Writ Petition came up for admission, the counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent Municipality submitted that orders had already been passed pursuant to Ext.P3 judgment. The Court on the same day passed Ext.P8 interim order directing the 2^nd respondent Municipality to furnish the report. It is submitted that, pursuant to Ext.P8, the petitioners were served with Ext.P9 order and also Ext.P10 report. It is the case of the petitioners that, in Ext.P9, only Ext.P10 is considered and Ext.P2 is not considered. Aggrieved by the same, this Writ Petition is filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Municipality, the learned counsel appearing for the

4^th respondent and the learned Government Pleader. 4. Counsel for the 4^th respondent submitted that a detailed counter affidavit is filed by the 4th respondent. The counsel also submitted that, misusing the interim order passed by this Court, the petitioners are undertaking repair work in the building.

5. Counsel for the petitioners reiterated the contentions raised in this Writ Petition. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioners and the 4^th respondent. Ext.P2 is a report of the expert appointed by this Court. It will be better to extract the conclusion in Ext.P2:

“Conclusion: The structural elements have been assessed and found to be adequate for their current use, with the exception of the roof structure, which requires immediate replacement. The foundation, wooden flooring, and brick masonry are all structurally sound, but it is advised that machinery loads be avoided on the wooden flooring. Regular inspections and maintenance are recommended to ensure the long-term safety and durability of the structure. Provided below are restoration methods. There is a spoiled area which has to be restored taking adequate structural consultation or to demolish the spoiled area mentioned in the architectural plan. From the above said recommendations to structure can withstand without any fail. periodical service is required to have a good service period. The Next page shows the pdf of the soil recommendation from a site at a distance of 400 m (Taken as a inference and confirmed by direct observation