No writ petition can be entertained after the limitation period for appeal has expired under the Kerala Municipality Act.

JUDGMENT

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

" 1) To call for the records leading to Exhibit P6 and Exhibit P14 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction, in the interest of justice;

2) To initiate contempt of court proceedings suo-moto against the 2^nd respondent for not complying with the direction stipulated in Exhibit.P11 judgment.

3) Dispense with the filing of English translation of Exhibits in vernacular;

4) To Issue such other orders or directions which deems necessary for the ends of justice and in the nature and circumstances of the case."

[SIC]

2. This writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P6 and P14 orders passed by the 2^nd respondent. Ext.P6 is an order passed in accordance with Section 406 (3) of the Kerala Municipality Act . After Ext.P6, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P(C) No.13983 of 2024. This Court, in that judgment, issued a direction to the Corporation to conclude the proceedings initiated based on a representation submitted by the petitioner after Ext.P6. The grievance of the petitioner is that no orders are passed after Ext.P11 judgment. Hence, this writ petition.

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

3^rd respondent.

4. A counter affidavit is filed by the 2nd respondent corporation. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the counter affidavit:

" 7. It is respectfully submitted that the above writ petition was filed against the notice dated 30.03.2024 issued to the petitioner by the Kollam Corporation. As per the judgment in WP(C) 37093 of 2022, “there was a direction to the Secretary of the Kollam Corporation to conclude the proceedings within a period of one month”. The Secretary of the Kollam Corporation has directed to complete the procedures and take final decisions. As per Rule 26 of KMBR, for the construction of a building of more than 7 meter high adjacent to the wall can be done with the consent of the neighboring land owner. A notice was issued to the petitioner to know that if there is any possibility of obtaining consent from the 3^rd respondent and on the basis of reply it was found that no consent can be obtained and hence a decision was taken for further action against the petitioner. But no reply was received from the petitioner to the office of the Kollam Corporation. The delay in demolition was due to the delay in reply.

8. It is submitted that, on 04.12.2023 a notice was issued to the petitioner to demolish the unauthorized construction but no reply was received. Hence, on 05.03.2024 an order was issue to demolish the unauthorized constructions departmentally and also issued a notice to the petitioner.

9. It is submitted that the Corporation had informed the petitioner over the phone due to delay in replying to the notice. On 30.03.2024, the petitioner appeared before the Kollam Corporation directly and received the notice.

5. In the light of the same, it is clear that Ext.P14 is the order passed after Ext.P11 judgment. Admittedly, Ext.P6 is an order passed under Section 406 (3) of the Kerala Municipality Act . That order was passed on 28.02.2022. This Court has not interfered with Ext.P6 order in Ext.P11 judgment. That means Ext.P6 became final. Similarly, Ext.P14 is only a consequential order passed in a representation submitted by the petitioner after Ext.P6 judgment. It seems that another order was also passed after Ext.P6. When (3) of the is passed, the remedy of the petitioner is to approach the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. There is a time limit also prescribed for filing an appeal, and another 30 days is prescribed for condoning the delay. This Court in Suresh K v. Municipal Corporation