R.GOPAKUMAR Vs. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging Ext.P13 order passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, whereby the revision filed by the 4th respondent was partly allowed and directed the 1st respondent Corporation to get the alleged unauthorized constructions examined by the Municipal Engineer with notice to the 4th respondent within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order, in respect of the age of the construction, and if the said construction is found to be a new construction, the Municipal Corporation was given the liberty to initiate fresh proceedings against the 4th respondent. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

(2.) Petitioner, along with his brother, is residing in a residential building situated in Re-survey No.20/10- 1 of Nemom Village within the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent Corporation. The immediate adjacent owner of the petitioner on the eastern side is the 4 th respondent, who had constructed a house in her property comprised in Re-survey No.20/12 having an extent of 9 cents, during the year 1980, after securing a loan from the Department of Prisons, Thiruvananthapuram. In the year 2013, while the petitioner was away from his house for the treatment of his brother, 4th respondent constructed a car shed, a toilet and a work area attached to the boundary wall of her property in front of the petitioner's property causing inconvenience to him. When the petitioner came to know about the construction, he made a complaint before the 2nd respondent, i.e., the Secretary of the 1st respondent Corporation, and thereupon, Ext.P4 stop memo was issued. Anyhow, violating the stop memo, 4 th respondent completed the construction which led to Ext.P6 stop memo issued by the 2nd respondent under Sec.406(1) and provisional order issued under Sec.406(2) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994. After hearing the 4 th respondent, 2nd respondent passed a final order as per Ext.P7 under Sec.406(3) of Act, 1994.

(3.) The 4th respondent thereafter preferred a representation before the Mayor of the 1st respondent, seeking to set aside Ext.P7. Since no action was taken on Ext.P7, petitioner preferred a complaint before the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions, seeking direction to dispose of the representation filed by the