Failure to comply with statutory notice provisions under the Kerala Municipality Act invalidates subsequent enforcement actions.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

“i) issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash Ext.P4 and Ext.P5 orders, after calling for the records leading to its issuance;

ii) issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents not to proceed with coercive steps against the petitioners and their building without complying with the provisions of Kerala Municipality Act ;

iii) petitioners also pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dispense with production of translation of the documents produced in vernacular language;

&

iv) issue such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

(SIC)

2. The petitioners are challenging Ext.P5 order passed in accordance to Section 406 (3) of the Kerala Municipality Act , 1994 (for short ‘Act 1994’). Ext.P5 is an order dated 27.11.2025. The short point raised by the petitioners is that, even though Ext.P4 provisional order is issued, no show cause notice is issued in accordance to (2) of the Act 1994. Hence, this writ petition is filed.

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

4. The counsel for the petitioners reiterated the contentions raised in this writ petition. The Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation submitted that after Ext.P4, there was a hearing and at the time of hearing also there was no grievance from the side of the petitioners. After giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, Ext.P5 confirmation order is passed. The Standing Counsel also submitted that the petitioners remedy, if any, is before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions against Ext.P5. The counsel submitted that the respondents will a file counter affidavit, if necessary.

5. This Court considered the contentions of the petitioners and the respondents. This Court perused Ext.P4 order. Ext.P4 is a provisional order passed under Section 406 (1) of the Act 1994. (2) and 406(3) of the Act 1994 is read like this:

“406. Demolition or alteration of building work unlawfully commenced, carried on or completed:-

(1) ---------

(2) The Secretary shall serve a copy of the provisional order made under sub-section (1) on the owner or the person for whom such work is done together with a notice requiring him to show cause within a reasonable time, to be specified in such notice why the order should not be confirmed.

(3) Where the owner or the person for whom the work is done fails to show cause to the satisfaction of the Secretary, the Secretary may confirm the order or modify the same to such extent as he may think fit to make, and such order shall then be binding on the owner or the person for whom the work is done and on the failure to comply with the order, the Secretary may himself cause the building or part thereof, demolished or the well dismantled, as the case may be and the expenses therefor shall be recoverable from the owner or such person.”

6. Section 406 (2) of the Act 1994 says that the Secretary can serve a copy of the provisional order made under sub-section (1) on the owner or the person for whom such work is done together with a notice requiring him to show cause within a reasonable time to be specified in such notice why the order should not be confirmed. According to the petitioners, there is no show cause notice issued after Ext.P4 provisional order. I think, there is some force in the above argument. But, I am not inclined to set aside Ext.P4 provisional order. The Corporation authori