The petitioner is aggrieved by Exhibit P7 order of the 1st respondent, by which she has been directed to demolish a septic tank that has been constructed by her. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the order is bad for the reason that it is not supported by any reasons. It is pointed out that the statement contained in Exhibit P4 was not considered. The petitioner has got a further contention that no inspection of the site was conducted before issuing the order. Though, a draft plan and a building permit was produced by the petitioner, they have also not been referred to. Therefore, it is contended that Exhibit P7 is liable to be set aside.
2. Adv.Sri V.M.Kurian appears for respondents 1 and 2. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner has a statutory remedy by way of appeal against Exhibit P7. This Writ Petition filed without exhausting the said alternative remedy is not maintainable, it is pointed out.
WPC.No.23709/13 -2-
3. Heard.
4. I notice that the petitioner has a statutory remedy of filing an appeal before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram. In view of the efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner, I am not satisfied that any interference with Exhibit P7 is called for at this stage.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner expresses an apprehension that Exhibit P7 would be implemented in the meantime. It is also pointed out that Exhibit P7 does not bear a date.
6. Since Exhibit P7 does not bear a date, the time for filing the statutory appeal shall begin to run only from the date of communication of Exhibit P7. It is also made clear that the 1st respondent shall not enforce Exhibit P7 until the expiry of the statutory period for filing an appeal.
With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of.
Sd/-(K.SURENDRA MOHAN) JUDGE.
dsn