THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.09.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J

--------------------------------

W.P (C) No.19430 of 2026

-------------------------------

Dated this the 03rd day of September, 2026

JUDGMENT

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

(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order calling for the records leading to ExhibitP9 and to quash the same.

(ii) Declare that Exhibits P9 is bad for the reason that the same is based on a decision of the 1st respondent dated 22/05/2026, which wasnot communicated to the petitioners;

(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order directing the respondents not to proceed against the petitioners without furnishing them with the copies of the order dated 22/05/2026 passed by the 1st respondent

(iv) Issue any other writ or order as is deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court in the greater interestof justice.

(v) Dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular documents."[SIC]

The 1st petitioner is the co-owner of 4.20 Ares of land inRe Sy No.335/2 of Kakkanad Village, is the submission. The property is in Ward No.16 of the 2nd respondent municipality, and there is a building bearing No.16/1142 situated in it, is the further submission. The 2nd petitioner conducts a hotel in the above- mentioned building with the name Al Salama Hotels. The business is being carried out with all the necessary licenses issued by the 2nd respondent as well as other authorities is the submission. The petitioners were served with a provisional order issued by the 1st respondent under section 406(2) of the Kerala Municipalities Act, to demolish an unauthorised construction. The grievance of the petitioner is that there are no specific details of the violations committed in the notice. The 1st respondent issued Ext.P6 order confirming the direction issued in Ext.P4. According to the petitioner, without considering Ext.P5 explanation submitted, the 1st respondent issued the Ext.P6 order without providing the details of the alleged unauthorised constructions. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner approached this court by filing WP(C) No.5979 of 2025. This Court, as per Ext.P7 judgment, observed that Exts.P4 and P6 did not contain the details of the unauthorised construction indicating the specific area to be removed and further observed that such details are absolutely necessary to identify the unauthorised construction and further directed the respondents to issue notice afresh specifying the violation and to give the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. It is submitted that the respondent conducted a hearing on 02.04.2025 and the petitioner demonstrated that he has not made any unauthorised construction. It is the case of the petitioner that no consequential decision in furtherance to the hearing was served to the petitioner and the petitioner submitted Ext.P8 representation expressing his willingness to carry out the measurement of the property in the presence of the concerned authority is the further submission. Subsequently, the petitioner was served with Ext.P9 vacation notice dated 23.05.2026. It is stated in it that, based on the direction of the Secretary, it has been decided to proceed to demolish the unauthorised construction. The case of the petitioner is that the order dated 22.05.2026 passed by the 1st respondent has not been communicated to the petitioner. It is submitted that the said act of the respondent amounts to a violation of principlesof natural justice. Hence, this writ petition.

Heard counsel for the petitioners and the StandingCounsel appearing for the Municipality.

When this writ petition came up for consideration on08.06.2026, this court passed the following order:

" The Standing Counsel will get instructions whether any consequential order is passed based on Exhibit P7. No coercive steps shall be taken against the