Unknown vs By Advs
2021 Latest Caselaw 10089 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                 PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

    THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1943

                     WP(C).No.14061 OF 2015(G)


PETITIONER

              HANEEF T.B
              AGED 59 YEARS
              S/O.BAVA,6/710.,JUTHENPARAMBU, BAZAR ROAD, KOCHI 2

              BY ADVS.
              SRI.SALIM V.S.
              SRI.P.V.JEEVESH
              SRI.H.NUJUMUDEEN
              SRI.SHANAVAS.S
              SMT.K.P.SHISU

RESPONDENTS

      1       CORPORATION OF COCHIN
              OPP.BOAT JETTY ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682011,
              REP BY SECRETARY

      2       P K ABDUL SALAM
              NEW CASTLE GALLERY, BAZAR ROAD, MATTANCHERY,
              KOCHI 682002

             R1 BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI
             R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN
                BY ADV. SMT.SREEJA SOHAN.K.
     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD          ON
25.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                            2

WP(C).No.14061 OF 2015(G)




                                    JUDGMENT

Dated this the 25th day of March 2021

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner

seeking direction to execute Ext.P4 order passed by

the Secretary of the Cochin Corporation dated

23.12.2014. On a reading of Ext.P4 what I could

gather is that, it is a notice issued under Section

406(1)of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994

(hereinafter referred to as the Act,1994). Since in

the complaint submitted by the petitioner, no

action was taken by the Municipality, the

petitioner has apparently approached this Court and

secured Ext.P3 judgment in W.P.(C)No.7715/2014

dated 24.03.2014 directing the Secretary of the

Corporation to finalise the representation. Section

406(1) of the Act, 1994 is an enabling provision

empowering the Secretary to proceed against any

WP(C).No.14061 OF 2015(G)

unauthorised or illegal construction. The

provisions of Section 406 of the Act, 1994 is by

itself a scheme, by which a finality is to be

attained as per sub Section 3 of Section 406.

2. Here is a case where, the petitioner has

approached this Court seeking direction to

implement Ext.P4 notice, which is only under

Section 406(1). It is clear from the said notice

that, the Secretary of the Corporation has directed

the 2nd respondent namely, one P.K.Abdul Salam to

remove the construction or else the Secretary would

be constrained to pass orders under sub section 3

of Section 406.

3. In my considered opinion, there is nothing

to be implemented in Ext.P4, but a further order is

to be passed by the Secretary of the Corporation in

order to attain finality and then implement the

directions contained in the notice issued under

Section 406 (1) and (2) of the Act, 1994.

Taking into account the subject matter of the

WP(C).No.14061 OF 2015(G)

issue and the facts and circumstance, I am of the

considered opinion that, petitioner has not made

out a case to secure any directions as is sought

for in the writ petition. Therefore after perusing

the pleadings and materials on record and hearing

the learned Standing Counsel for the Cochin

Corporation and the party respondent, this writ

petition is dismissed, making it clear that if any

final order is passed by the Municipality, the

parties will have to work out their remedies, in

accordance with law.

SD/-

SHAJI P.CHALY

JUDGE hmh

WP(C).No.14061 OF 2015(G)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 P1:-THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRSENTATION DTD 22/1/2014

EXHIBIT P2 P2:-THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD 13/2/2015

EXHIBIT P3 P3:-THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 7715/2014

EXHIBIT P4 P4:-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD 23/12/2014

EXHIBIT P5 P5:-TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD 6/4/2015

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL