SATHI KUMARI Vs. SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Can a 'vacation notice' issued after the confirmation of a provisional order be challenged under Sec. 509(6) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994?

(2.) On the basis of a complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent alleging that the petitioner had constructed a toilet in her property, abutting the boundary wall of his property, the 1st respondent, the Secretary, Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram, issued Ext. P2 provisional order under Sec. 406(1) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), requiring the petitioner to demolish the unauthorized construction described therein and carried out in violation of Rules 26(4) and 67 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Building Rules').

(3.) The petitioner submitted Ext. P3 explanation in response to Ext. P2, wherein it was pointed out, among other things, that the construction was carried out after obtaining consent from the predecessor in interest of the 2nd respondent.