V. Suresh Kumar vs The Secretary
2021 Latest Caselaw 10151 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.3177 OF 2014(V)


PETITIONER:

               V. SURESH KUMAR
               SURAMANA, SUPRA 405 F, PADMAM LANE, NETTAYAM PO,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

               BY ADV. SMT.K.L.LAKSHMI RANI

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

      2        RANI.L.R
               RAHUL BHAVAN, SPRA 401 A, KALLAMPOTTA , NETTAYAM PO,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 691 537

               R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.)
                     ADV. SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-02-
2014, THE COURT ON 25-03-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.3177 OF 2014(V)                       2




                                   JUDGMENT

Dated this the 25th day of March 2021

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

I) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or

order commanding the 1st respondent to obey the directions contained in

Exhibit P4 judgment of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions

within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

II) Issue such other further reliefs as are necessary in the interest of

justice.

2. The issue raised in this writ petition is in regard to non-

implementation of the directions issued by the Tribunal for Local Self

Government Institutions as per Exhibit P4 order dated 19 th October, 2012 in

Appeal No.408/2012. The said proceedings before the Tribunal was on the

basis of an appeal filed by the 2 nd respondent in this writ petition viz.,

Rani.L.R., Rahul Bhavan, Nettatam.P.O., Thiruvananthapuram, within the

limits of the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram, against a proceeding

initiated by the Secretary of the Corporation on the basis of a complaint filed

by the writ petitioner. Operative portion of Exhibit P4 order of the Tribunal

reads thus:

"In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is

allowed. The Secretary shall conduct a proper inspection of the site with notice to the appellant and the complainant Sri.Suresh Kumar either by himself or by deputing an experienced subordinate officer, collect the clear nature of the unauthorised construction allegedly effected the type of construction, the law violated by the said construction and initiate fresh proper proceedings against the appellant narrating the real nature of the construction, the type of construction, the law violated by the construction etc. under Section 406 of the Kerala Municipality Act."

3. Therefore, it is clear that the Tribunal has set aside the order passed

by the Secretary of the Corporation under section 406 of Act, 1994 and

directed to re-consider the issue taking into account the directions and

observations contained in the said order. The grievance of the petitioner is that

Secretary of the Corporation is not taking any steps to comply with the

directions.

4. As I have said above, this writ petition was pending before this Court

from the year 2014 without securing any interim orders. In that view of the

matter, it cannot be normally presumed that anything survives to be

considered on account of the directions issued by the Tribunal for Local Self

Government Institutions.

5. After hearing learned counsel for petitioner, learned Senior

Government Pleader and learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation of

Thiruvananthapuram, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the Secretary of

the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation to consider the issue in accordance with

the directions contained in Exhibit P4 order passed by the Tribunal, if anything

still survives to be considered in accordance with the directions and if any

orders are already passed on the basis of Exhibit P4, the directions contained

above would stand vacated.

Sd/-

                                                  SHAJI P.CHALY

smv                                                    JUDGE





                             APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1               EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED

BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 29/9/2011

EXHIBIT P2 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE CONDITIONal ORDER PASSED BY THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 3/10/2011

EXHIBIT P3 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED 8/5/12 PASSED BAY THE IST RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P4 EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN APPEAL NO.408/2012 OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS DATED 19/10/2012 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS'

EXHIBIT R2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 25.9.2013 SENT BY THE ASSISTAT ENGINEER OF THE VATTIYOORKAVU ZONAL OFFICE OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION

EXHIBIT R2(b) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.10.2013 SENT TO TEH ASSISTANT ENGINEER

EXHIBIT R2(c) TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 24.10.2013 ISSUED BY THE CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM