Non-compliance with procedural requirements under the Kerala Municipality Act invalidates demolition orders.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

i. Call for the records relating to Exts.P1 to P6, P8 and P9 from the respondents.

ii. Quash Exts.P2 and P9 by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ direction or order.

iii. Issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to demolish the petitioner's building covered by Exts.P4 and P5 on the basis of Ext.P2 and P9 or otherwise.

iv. Such other reliefs which in the circumstances of this case, this Honourable Court deems just and proper.

(SIC)

2. This writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P2 and P9 orders passed by the Corporation. Ext.P2 is a provisional order under Section 406 (1) of the Kerala Municipality Act and Ext.P9 is the confirmation order. The petitioner earlier approached this Court with WP(C) No. 38285/2015 challenging the provisional order. This Court disposed that case as per Ext.P7 judgment. It will be better to extract the judgment itself: “The petitioner has filed Ext.P6 objection to Ext. P2 provisional order passed in terms of (1) of the . The petitioner questions the very jurisdiction of respondents 3 and

4 to issue a provisional order of the nature.

2. I make it clear that even the question of jurisdiction can be gone into while considering Ext.P6 objection to Ext. P2 provisional order. The report relied on by respondents 3 and 4 in Ext.P2 provisional order shall be furnished to the petitioner prior to the hearing.

3. I direct the second respondent to take the proceedings to a logical end after hearing the parties. The needful shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Coercive steps if any for demolition of any part of the structure shall be put on hold till orders are passed as directed above.

The Writ Petition is disposed of.”

3. In Ext.P7 judgment, this Court clearly stated that the report relied on by the Corporation authorities in the provisional order should be furnished to the petitioner before taking further action. This Court perused Ext.P9 final order. A perusal of the same would not show that the report relied on in the provisional order is furnished to the petitioner. There are other contentions raised by the petitioner and the same is also not considered by the Corporation authorities.

4. When this writ petition came up for consideration on

10.05.2016, this Court passed the following order:

“The Standing Counsel for the Corporation seeks time to get instructions.

Post on 19.05.2016.

There will be an interim order against demolition of any portion of the petitioner's building covered by Exts.P2 and P9, for a period of one month.”

5. The above interim order was extended until further orders on 22.06.2016. That order is in force even now. I am of the considered opinion that Ext.P9 is to be set aside because it is an order passed without following the direction in Ext.P7 judgment.

Therefore, this Writ Petition is allowed in the following manner:

1. Exts.P2 and P9 are set aside.

2. I make it clear that the respondents can proceed in accordance with law, if there is any violation after strictly following the provisions of Section 406 of the Kerala Municipality Act .

sd/-