LEKHA ROSE Vs. PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a resident of Palakkad Municipality. She is challenging Exts.P1 and P2 orders issued by the 1st respondent - Municipality, directing demolition of certain unauthorised constructions made by her. She has filed an appeal before the Government against those orders. Since the alternate remedy is already invoked, there is no necessity for this Court to go into the validity of the impugned orders under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. But, the additional 2nd respondent who got himself impleaded in this O.P., submits that in view of the amendment to S.509 of the Kerala Municipality Act, the Government do not have any power to hear an appeal against the final order passed by the Secretary under S.406. So, this point was heard at length.

(2.) The learned counsel Sri. P.K. Suresh Kumar, appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel Sri. P.N. Ravindran, appearing for the additional 2nd respondent were heard on the two views regarding the matter. I also heard the learned Government Pleader Sri. Valsalan, appearing for the additional 3rd respondent - State.

(3.) The petitioner would submit that in view of S.509(12) of the Kerala Municipality Act, the Government are competent to entertain appeals till the date of constitution of the Tribunal. By necessary implication the said provision grants the power to dispose of the appeals also. The above said sub-section provides for handing over to the Tribunal only those pending appeals and revisions not disposed of. If such an interpretation is not accepted, the persons suffering from adverse orders of the original authority will be left without remedy and the time limit for invoking the appellate remedy will also be over. In such circumstances, though the affected persons can approach this Court, the powers of this Court to interfere under Art.226 of the J Constitution on factual disputes are limited. As far as the findings of facts are concerned, this Court cannot normally interfere. Therefore, unless the interpretation that the Government still retain the power to entertain appeals is not accepted, the same will work out serious prejudice. So, when two interpretations are possible, one that promotes j justice and equity should be accepted, submits the learned counsel for the petitioner.