KABEER P. Vs. PUNALUR MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court impugning Ext.P8 order of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, as per which, his statutory appeal against the order of the Secretary of the 1st respondent - Punalur Municipality under Section 406(3) of the Kerala Municipality Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), has been rejected on finding that there is no merit in the contentions therein.

(2.) The petitioner says that Ext.P8 is untenable in law, since it has been issued without hearing him as also because it does not take into account any of the relevant factors. The petitioner asserts that a construction being carried on by him is not illegal and that no portion of the same is projecting into the public road as alleged; and therefore, that the order issued by Secretary of the Municipality under Section 406(3) of the Act ought to have been found to be incompetent by the Tribunal. The petitioner thus prays that Ext.P8 be set aside and the Municipality be directed not to take any further action pursuant to the order under Section 406(3) of the Act.

(3.) In response, the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality submits that, as has been clearly found by the Tribunal, the extension in front of the shop room owned by the petitioner has been made much after its Completion Certificate had been issued by the Municipality. He says that at the time when the Completion Certificate was issued, there was no such extension and that, obviously, the petitioner must have made it much later - without obtaining any licence or permit to do so. He says that the petitioner did not have a case even before the Tribunal that the provisions of Section 406 of the Act had not been followed but had merely contended that he will demolish the construction after the Muncipality takes action against all other persons, who he alleges, are also in encroachment of public spaces. The learned Standing Counsel concludes by asserting that at present, the petitioner's unauthorised extension projects into the pedestrian area of the National Highway and that this will cause great danger to vehicular traffic as well as to the pedestrians in future, and thus prays that this writ petition be dismissed.