The court upheld the municipality's authority to issue demolition notices for unauthorized construction, maintaining legal procedures under the Municipality Act.

JUDGMENT

This Writ Petition (C) is filed seeking the following reliefs:

" i. To Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Exhibits P6 and P7 notices issued by the 2^nd respondent.

ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the respondents from demolishing the petitioner’s building or taking any coercive action pursuant to Exhibits P6 and P7. "

[SIC]

2. Alleging that there is unauthorised construction on the side of the petitioner, a provisional order was passed, and the same was confirmed by the Municipal Authority. Thereafter, it seems that the petitioner demolished a portion of unauthorised construction. Thereafter, the Municipality again issued proceedings as directed by the Ombudsman. Even now, unauthorised construction is not removed and therefore, Ext.P7 is issued by the Municipality. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.

3. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel appearing for the Municipality. I also heard the counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent.

4. When this case came up for consideration on

28.11.2025, this Court passed the following order:

" Issue notice on admission to the respondents through speed post. Post on 18.12.2025.

The status quo with respect to the petitioner's building shall be maintained till then."

5. This Court perused Ext.P7 order. A perusal of Ext.P7 would show that a provisional order was passed in accordance with Section 406 (1) and (2) of the Municipality Act , and thereafter, the same was confirmed in accordance with 406 (3) of the . There is no case to the petitioner that the same is challenged before any authority. Subsequently, the petitioner demolished a portion of the unauthorised construction is the contention of the Municipality and the party respondents. This is disputed by the petitioner. Whatever that may be, the contention of the petitioner is rejected as per Ext.P7. Even in Ext.P7, it is stated that the petitioner seeks time to file an appropriate application for regularisation. The same is also not done by the petitioner, is the observation in Ext.P7. In such circumstances, this Court is not in a position to interfere with Ext.P7. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner may be allowed to take appropriate steps to regularise the construction remaining. I do not want to make any observation about the same. Whether such an application is maintainable or not is to be decided by the Municipality. Considering the request of the petitioner, the interim order already passed can be continued for a period of one month.

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to maintain the status quo as far as the petitioner's building is concerned for a period of one month.

Sd/-