K.L. RAJAMANICKAM Vs. SHORNUR MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SHORNUR MUNICIPALITY, SHORNUR, PIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is challenging the order of the Tribunal which upheld Ext. P3 order passed by the Municipality on 10.06.2010 directing demolition of the shed in his possession. According to the petitioner he has been conducting a vehicle workshop within the area of the Shornur Municipality and he had been using the shed adjacent to the workshop for parking vehicles which were coming for repairs. The 1st respondent Municipality issued a notice, Ext. P1 under Section 406 (1) and (2) of the Kerala Municipality Act (for short, "the Act") on 30.11.2006. Against the proposal to take action for demolition of the shed which was constructed without permit, the petitioner submitted Ext. P2, reply stating that he did not construct or reconstruct any shed. The tiled roof of a shed fell down in rain and he replaced the tiled roof without effecting any alteration in the length, width or height of the shed. According to him, there is no violation of the provisions contained in Sections 381, 387 or 383A of the Act as alleged in the notice. Petitioner stated that the shed was being used for the very same purpose and the provisions in Section 383A are not applicable. Petitioner stated that he had effected only some repairs with asbestos sheets in the place of tiles and reinforced the beams with steel pipes. Petitioner states that the above works would not come under the definition of construction or reconstruction and hence no permission was required. Regarding the applicability of Section 383A, he stated that he has done only repairs of the old shed which was in existence and therefore the provisions contained in the said Section which was incorporated on 24.03.1999 are not applicable to the shed in question which was put up before 30 years. Regarding the applicability of Rule 59 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999, for short, ("the KMBR"), it was stated that that Rule applies only to hazardous occupancies of land having 0.5 hectares with layout of building about 500 square meters. In the case of petitioner, the shed in question does not have more than 500 square meters, and hence Rule 59 (2) and (3) of the KMBR was not applicable. Petitioner stated that it was only on account of the influence of the 2nd respondent that the Municipality had issued the notice.

(2.) The Municipality thereupon issued Ext. P3 notice stating that the petitioner had already admitted that the tiled roof was replaced without obtaining a permit. It was found that the construction was in violation of Rule 59, 59 (2) and (3) of the KMBR as well as Rules 25, 26 and 30 of the KMBR. It was also found that the construction comes under Group I (i) of hazardous occupancies and therefore permit is necessary which was also found in violation. Therefore it was directed that the shed should be demolished or else appropriate action will be taken. The petitioner thereupon approached the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions in appeal No. 578 of 2010. The Tribunal by order Ext. P4, after perusal of the files, found that the petitioner had replaced the tiled roof of the shed with asbestos sheets and reinforced the beams with steel pipes even though he had not obtained permit. He had also admitted that he had effected the repairs using asbestos sheets in the place of tiles and reinforced the beams with steel pipes. All these revealed unauthorised construction by the petitioner in violation of the provisions contained in the KMBR. The Tribunal further found that the inspection report as well as the photographs and documents produced by the Municipality as well as the 2nd respondent supported the case of the Municipality and did not interfere with the order of demolition.

(3.) Petitioner challenges Ext. P4 order on the ground that the Tribunal passed the order without considering any of the contentions.