The court upheld the principle that appealable orders should be pursued in the appropriate forum rather than through writ petitions.

JUDGMENT

The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:

"(i) to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and set aside Ext-P10;

(ii) to declare that in view of the stand of the respondent Municipality in the matter reflected in Ext-P6 Written Statement filed in Statutory Appeal No. 306 of 2020 before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, the further opportunity or liberty given to the Municipality to initiate fresh steps against the petitioner is not correct in law and maintainable in law;

(iii) to declare that in view of the fact that Ext-P5 final order issued under Section 406 of the Municipality Act was assailed by the petitioner in Appeal No. 306 of 2020 before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions and in that appeal Municipality by filing Ext-P6 Written Statement conceded that the truss work put up by the petitioner on the top floor of the commercial building was approved by it and thereafter issued Occupancy Certificate and Building Number and therefore, the Municipality is debarred in law in again initiating any fresh action on the very same allegation and thereby passed final order at Ext-P10 and directed the petitioner to demolish the truss work;

(iv) to declare that in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner is justified in approaching the Hon'ble Court by invoking the writ jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India;

(v) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction and direct the respondents to pay exemplary cost to the petitioner for simply harassing the petitioner by projecting a new reason in Ext-P10 than the one projected in the first round in Ext-P5 final order;

(vi) to dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular documents; and (vii) to grant such other and further relief as this Honorable Court may consider just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. "

[SIC]

2. The petitioner challenges Ext.P10, which is an order passed under Section 406 (3) of the Kerala Municipality Act . Admittedly, it is an appealable order. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain the same.

3. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the same may be kept in abeyance to enable the petitioner to file an appeal before the Tribunal, if this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition.

4. I think that prayer can be allowed.

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of in the following manner:

The further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P10 shall be kept in abeyance for a period of one month. In the meanwhile, the petitioner is free to approach the Appellate Authority with an appeal.

Sd/-