JOHNSON K.P. Vs. ELOOR MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions being instituted in respect of the same subject matter, they are disposed of by this common judgment. The parties and documents are referred to in the judgment, unless otherwise mentioned, as they appear in W.P.(C)No.20402 of 2020.

(2.) Petitioners and the fourth respondent are siblings. They own a property with a residential building. The property was inherited by them from their deceased father. Petitioners 1 and 2 are residing with their families in the property. The third petitioner who is a bachelor is also residing with petitioners 1 and 2 in the property. The fourth respondent is residing separately. It is alleged by the petitioners that the fourth respondent has recently put up a temporary structure in the front yard of the residential building existing in the property and started selling vegetables, fruits, coconuts etc. The case of the petitioners is that on account of the temporary structure and the activity undertaken by the fourth respondent therein, their access to the residential building from the road is affected. According to the petitioners, the conduct of the fourth respondent would amount to nuisance. It is alleged by the petitioners that though they have sent several complaints to the first respondent, the Municipality concerned, seeking appropriate action against the fourth respondent, no action is taken on their complaints. The petitioners, therefore, seek appropriate directions to respondents 1 to 3 to remove the obstructions caused to them by the fourth respondent.

(3.) It is seen that on receipt of the complaints from the petitioners, the Health Inspector of the first respondent has issued a notice to the fourth respondent on 23.09.2020, informing him that licence under the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (the Act) is required for the activity undertaken by him in the property and that if he does not obtain licence for the activity, action would be taken against him. Later, the Secretary of the first respondent has issued another notice to the fourth respondent informing him that the structure put up by him in the property is an unauthorised one, and called upon him to remove the same. The said notice was issued on 08.10.2020. W.P. (C)No.22542 of 2020 is instituted by the fourth respondent challenging the aforesaid notices. The notices dated 23.9.2020 and 8.10.2020 are produced in W.P.C No.22542 of 2020 as Exts. P3 and P5 respectively. The case set out by the fourth respondent in W.P.(C)No.22542 of 2020 is that he preferred an application for licence immediately on receipt of Ext.P3 notice therein, and in so far as the said application is pending consideration, further action pursuant to the said notice is not justified. It is also the case of the fourth respondent in W.P. (C)No.22542 of 2020 that the structure put up by him is a temporary structure for which permission is not required and therefore, the same cannot be regarded as an unauthorised structure and action contemplated in respect of the said structure is without jurisdiction.