Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 22386
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J
Ismail Sahib M. – Appellant
Versus
The Municipality of Pathanamthitta – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 10861 OF 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri.Manu Ramachandran, Sri.M.Kiranlal, Sri.R.Rajesh (Varkala), Sri.T.S.Sarath, Shri.Sameer M Nair, Smt.Sailakshmi Menon, Smt. Aashi K. Shajan, Shri.Hafeez Muhammed, Smt.Binitha Maria Thomas, Smt.Akza Susan Bency
For the Respondents: Sri.V.K.Sunil
Provisional orders under the Kerala Municipality Act must precede final orders to ensure due process.
Headnote:The petitioners challenge Ext.P7 order of the Municipality claiming it violates Section 406(1) of the Kerala Municipality Act 1994. The Court finds that no provisional order was issued as required, thus allowing the Writ Petition. The Court sets aside Ext.P7 and directs compliance with Ext.P6 from the Tribunal.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. tribunal's directive highlighted the need for an explanation in demolition orders. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 2. court's decision to set aside ext.p7 and enforce tribunal compliance. (Para 6 , 8) |
JUDGMENT
The above Writ Petition is filed with the following prayers:
“1. To call for records leading to Exhibit P7 order and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any appropriate writ, order or direction, in the interest of justice;
2. To issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ or direction, directing the respondent no.2 to afford opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass a fresh order in compliance with the directions mandated by the Tribunal in Ext.P6-order;
3. Dispense with the filing of English translation of Exhibits, if any, in vernacular; and
4. Issue such other orders or directions which are deemed necessary for the ends of justice and in the circumstances of the case.”
2. The main grievance of the petitioners is that Ext.P7 order is passed without a provisional order in accordance with Section 406 (1) of the Kerala Municipality Act 1994 .
3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.
4. The petitioners approached the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions against an earlier order passed by the Municipality as evidenced by Ext.P3. The Tribunal disposed the appeal with the following order:
“Heard both sides.
Order of demolition dated
20/03/2019 under Section 406 (3) of the Kerala Municipality Act against the appellants in challenged in this appeal.
On perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the Secretary has not explained the nature and extent of the alleged unauthorized construction. Instead, only the relevant rules violated are quoted. Similar order was passed under Section 406 (1) of the Kerala Municipality Act also. Moreover, the impugned order is prepared in a printed format after filling the columns indicating non application of mind by the Secretary and this practice has been deprecated by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in Samson K.C. v. Secretary, Kochi Municipal Corporation and others
In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The Secretary shall initiate fresh proceedings under Section 406 of the Kerala Municipality Act if the alleged violations still exist. Needless to say, the reason for not accepting the explanation of the appellants should be mentioned in the final order under (3) of the Act, if a confirmation order is passed. There is no order as to costs.
5. A perusal of the above order would show that the Tribunal specifically directs to do the needful as per Section 406 of the Municipality Act. The grievance of the petitioners is that no provisional order is passed before passing Ext.P7. The contention of the petitioners is also not considered is the further grievance. This Court directed the Standing Counsel appearing for the Municipality to find out whether any provisional order is passed. Today, the Standing Counsel fairly submitted that no provisional order is passed. If that is the case, Ext.P7 is to be set aside and the Municipality has to obey the directions in Ext.P6 order of the Tribunal.
6. Therefore, this Writ Petition is allowed with the following directions:
7. Ext.P7 is set aside.
8. The 2nd respondent is directed to obey the directions in Ext.P6 order of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions.
