Faizal Sulaiman vs Palakkad Municipality
2023 Latest Caselaw 6418 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
         TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 23RD JYAISHTA, 1945
                         WP(C) NO. 18766 OF 2023
PETITIONER

             FAIZAL SULAIMAN
             AGED 35 YEARS
             S/O SULAIMAN, FAREETHA MANZIL, PUTHUPPARIYARAM-I,
             PALAKKAD, PIN - 678731
             BY ADV V.A.VINOD


RESPONDENTS:

     1       PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY
             REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE,
             KUNNATHURMEDU, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
     2       THE SECRETARY
             PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE,KUNNATHURMEDU,
             PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001
     3       ANI SUDHIN
             TITAN SHOWROOM, ALKHAM TOWER, COLLEGE ROAD, PALAKKAD, PIN
             - 678001

             BY ADV .BINOY VASUDEVAN, SC, PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO.18766 OF 2023
                                    2


                               JUDGMENT

Dated this the 13th day of June, 2023

The grievance of the petitioner is that he has been

issued with Ext.P4 directing to remove certain constructions

made by him.

2. The petitioner is a tenant. The allegation in Ext.P4

is that in front of the Tea Shop of the petitioner, the petitioner

has spread certain sheets and converted the space to a room,

unauthorisedly. The direction in Ext.P4 is to remove the same

within 15 days and intimate the Municipality.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Ext.P4

Demolition Order did not precede any notice in writing to him.

Ext.P4 is therefore in gross violation of the principles of natural

justice.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

and the learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 1

and 2. In view of the nature of the relief to be granted in the

writ petition, notice to the 3rd respondent is dispensed with. WP(C) NO.18766 OF 2023

5. Nobody has a case that the petitioner has been

issued with a prior notice before ordering demolition of the

alleged illegal construction as has been done in Ext.P4.

Violation of principles of natural justice is obvious. In the

circumstances, I am of the view that Ext.P4 should be treated

as a Show-Cause notice to the petitioner and respondents 1

and 2 shall take a decision after considering Ext.P5 objection

submitted by the petitioner.

The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing

respondents 1 and 2 to treat Ext.P4 as Show-cause Notice,

consider Ext.P5 objection submitted by the petitioner and take

a decision afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance

with law, after hearing the petitioner and the complainant. Till a

decision is taken afresh, any coercive proceedings pursuant to

Ext.P4 against the petitioner shall stand deferred.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE hmh WP(C) NO.18766 OF 2023

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18766/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE DATED 06.09.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT MUNICIPALITY Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION ALONG WITH RECEIPT DATED 23.03.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR RENEWAL OF LICENCE Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE FSSAI LICENSE DATED 06.09.2022 Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 27.05.2023 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH RECEIPT DATED 06.06.2023