The court emphasized the necessity of implementing a municipal order confirmed by a higher tribunal, underscoring adherence to statutory mandates under the local governance framework.

JUDGMENT

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

" A) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other writs or orders directing the respondents 1 to 3 to forthwith implement Ext.P1 order which has long since been confirmed by Ext P4 order in appeal.

B) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other writs or orders directing the respondents 1 to 3 to comply with the mandates in Ext P4 order of the LSGT at any rate within 2 weeks or any other reasonable time this Hon’ble court may deem fit to fix for the same.

C) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other writs or orders directing the respondents 1 to 3 to forthwith issue to the petitioner, all the records sought for in Ext P5.

D) Award the cost of this writ petition."

[SIC]

2. The main prayer in this writ petition is to implement Ext.P1 order passed by the Municipality. Admittedly, Ext.P1 is an order passed under Section 406 (3) of the Kerala Municipality Act . The party respondents challenged the Ext.P1 order before the Tribunal for the Local Self Government Institutions (LSGI). The Tribunal, as per Ext.P4, confirmed Ext.P1 order. It is submitted that before the Tribunal, an application for regularization which was dismissed, was also challenged. As far as that order is concerned, the following order is passed by the Tribunal, which is extracted hereunder:

" In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.

1. The impugned notice No. PW2-(RA) 22/22-23 dated 08/07/2022 stands set aside.

2. The respondent shall give opportunity of hearing to the appellant and the 3^rd respondent. Site inspection shall be condcuted in the presence of the parties and measurements shall be taken. The copy of the approved plan of the building, completion plan and assessment register have to be verified before passing order in the application dated 05/07/2022.

3. The appellant is at liberty to claim the benefit of Rule 26 (4) and the consent given by the 3^rd respondent in 2009 shall also be verified while passing order in respect of the additional construction done abutting the eastern boundary and speaking order shall be passed on merit within 2 months from the date of receipt of this order.

4. Considering the facts and circumstances, no order as to cost."

3. In paragraph No.13 of Ext.P4, it is clearly stated that the Ext.P1 order is confirmed. Now, the Standing Counsel appearing for the Municipality submitted that, as directed in Ext.P4, a hearing was conducted, and again the request of the party respondents is rejected, and a direction is issued to demolish. The party respondents submitted that they have not received such an order. Whatever that may be, Ext.P1 order became final, and it is confirmed as per Ext.P4 order of the Tribunal. If that is the case, Ext.P1 order is to be implemented forthwith.

Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following direction.

1. The respondents Nos.1 to 3 shall ensure that Ext.P1 is implemented in letter and spirit, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-