SHAMMI THILAKAN Vs. N. SHEELA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals have been filed against the common judgment dated 12/03/2015 in W.P.C. Nos. 25997/2011 and 32715/2011. The 3rd respondent in W.P.C. No. 25997/2011 and the 5th respondent in W.P.C. No. 32715/2011 being the same person, has filed these appeals.

(2.) THE issued involved in W.P.C. No. 25997/2011 had arisen on account of the petitioner, who is the 1st respondent herein, challenging Ext. P8, an order passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions and for a further direction to quash Ext. P4 order. Direction is also sought against the Kollam Corporation not to enforce Ext. P4 order before disposal of Ext. P3 regularization application submitted by the petitioner. Ext. P8 order, which was impugned, relates to an appeal filed by the 1st respondent herein/writ petitioner and another challenging the order passed by the Secretary of the Corporation on 12/05/2011 (Ext. P4) by which, proceedings were taken by the Corporation under Section 406 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, on a finding that the 1st respondent had made unauthorised constructions in respect of a building owned by him. The Tribunal, after evaluating the entire factual issues that had arisen in the case, found that the unauthorised constructions mentioned as item Nos. 1 to 4, 8, 11 to 13 are admitted by the 1st respondent and that the unauthorised constructions mentioned in Item Nos. 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 are proved by the Corporation. The Tribunal also took note of the submissions made by the Corporation that the unauthorised constructions cannot be regularised. It was further observed that necessary orders have to be passed by the Corporation in that regard. In the said circumstances, the Tribunal observed that there is no legal infirmity in the order passed by the Corporation under Section 406 of the Municipality Act and accordingly the appeal was dismissed.

(3.) RESPONDENTS had opposed the writ petition inter alia contending that there was no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal in so far as the unauthorised constructions were proved or rather admitted by the building owner. It was also pointed out that there was justification on the part of the respondent authorities in issuing stop memos against the writ petitioners on account of the violation of statutory provisions.