JUDGMENT : Since common issues arise for consideration in these writ petitions, they are disposed of by this common judgment. Unless otherwise expressly indicated, the status of the parties and the exhibits referred to herein below shall be as obtaining in W.P.(C) No.21312 of 2021. 2. The petitioners in both the writ petitions are neighbours. Each alleges that the other had made constructions in breach of permit and licensing provisions. 3. The petitioners in W.P.(C) No.21312 of 2021 are owners of 1.7 ares of land comprised in Survey. No.190/35 of Thiruvalla Village and a commercial building thereon. According to them, they have reconstructed the building in accordance with the building permit and approved plan issued by the 1st respondent Municipality. The ground floor of the building has been numbered and the same has been occupied. The petitioners started construction of the first floor of the said building after obtaining Ext.P1 building permit, and while the construction was about to complete, the 5th respondent made a complaint before the Municipality alleging that the petitioners have encroached into his property and the construction is made in violation of the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short) and the Kerala Municipality Building Rules,1999 ('Building Rules' for short). The 4th respondent, the Secretary of the Municipality issued Ext.P4 order in exercise of his powers under Section 406(3) of the Act to demolish the illegal structures carried out by the petitioners in the first floor. 4. The petitioners challenged Ext.P4 order before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions (Tribunal) and the Tribunal, by Ext.P6 order set aside Ext.P4 order finding that the same was issued without following the procedure contemplated under the Act. The Tribunal directed the 4th respondent to issue fresh notice under Section 406(1) of the Act and to hear the petitioners and the 5th respondent, who had got himself impleaded in the appeal, and to take a decision. The Tribunal also clarified that the Secretary is at liberty to seek the assistance of revenue officials to find out the exact boundary of the properties owned by the petitioners and the 5th respondent. 5. Pursuant to Ext.P6 order of the Tribunal, the 4th respondent passed Ext. The Tribunal also clarified that the Secretary is at liberty to seek the assistance of revenue officials to find out the exact boundary of the properties owned by the petitioners and the 5th respondent. 5. Pursuant to Ext.P6 order of the Tribunal, the 4th respondent passed Ext. P12 order under Section 406(3) of the Act, directing the petitioners to remove certain structures, which were found to be carried out in violation of the Building Rules and the permit. 6. The petitioners state that, they have removed the unauthorised portions directed to be removed in Ext.P12 and also cured the defects pointed out therein. The petitioners thereafter submitted an application for numbering the building and for occupancy certificate. They also made an application for regularisation of the constructions carried out by them which was forwarded by the 4th respondent to the Town Planner by letter dated 13.11.2018. The application for regularisation was returned by the Town Planner, Pathanamthitta by Exts. P16 and P17 communications pointing out that the application is not in terms of Kerala Municipality Building (Regularisation of Unauthorised Construction) Rules, 2018, and for non compliance with the provisions of the Act and Building Rules, including insufficient set back. 7. In the meantime, the 5th respondent had approached the Government with a representation dated 03.08.2018, requesting not to regularise the constructions carried out by the petitioners. The 2nd respondent, the Secretary to Government, Local Self Government Department (LSGD), acted upon the representation of the 5th respondent and called for a report from the Chief Town Planner (Vigilance), LSGD, the 3rd respondent. The Chief Town Planner submitted Ext. P18 report to the Government stating that the building violates Section 383 A of the Act and Rules 24(3) & (5), 26 and 34(2) of the Building Rules and recommending the Secretary of the Municipality to take action against the building as per Rule 18 of the Building Rules, to submit explanation for not taking action against the building and to take further action in accordance with the judgment in pending W.P. (C) No. 24665 of 2017 filed by the 5th respondent. 8. On the basis of Ext. P18 report, the Government, by Ext.P19 letter, directed the Secretary of the Municipality to take action on the recommendations of the Chief Town Planner (Vigilance) in Ext. P18 report and to submit action taken report to the Government. 9. 8. On the basis of Ext. P18 report, the Government, by Ext.P19 letter, directed the Secretary of the Municipality to take action on the recommendations of the Chief Town Planner (Vigilance) in Ext. P18 report and to submit action taken report to the Government. 9. Pursuant to Ext.P19, the 4th respondent issued Ext.P20 notice to the petitioners, directing them to rectify the defects in the construction referred to therein and to submit a plan after rectifying the defects. On the basis of yet another complaint of the 5th respondent, the Secretary of the Municipality issued Ext.P21 notice, informing the petitioners that out of the five defects pointed out, only two defects have been rectified and further proceedings in respect of the building can be taken only after rectifying the remaining defects. Challenging Exts. P18, P19, P20 and P21, this writ petition is filed. 10. According to the petitioners, they have carried out the constructions only in accordance with Ext.P1 building permit. It is stated that, pursuant to Ext. P6 order of the Tribunal, the Secretary of the Municipality has passed Ext. P12 order under Section 406(3) of the Act and the petitioners have complied with the directions therein and all the defects pointed out were rectified. It is contend that, since there was already an existing building in the property where the construction has been carried out, further set back of 3 meters is not necessary and there is no violation of the Act or the Building Rules. It is further stated that Ext. P18 report of the Chief Town Planner has been obtained behind the back of the petitioners and they have received a copy of the said report under the Right to Information Act. The petitioners contend that the issue with respect of unauthorised construction is finally decided in Ext. P12 and further order under Section 406 is impermissible under law and the Government cannot therefore issue an order in the nature of Ext.P19. It is also contended that the further violations and defects pointed out in Ext. P21 are unsustainable. 11. A counter affidavit is placed on record on behalf of the Municipality and its Secretary denying the averments in the writ petition and a reply affidavit is filed by the petitioners. 12. W.P.(C) No.24665 of 2017 is filed by the 5th respondent for a direction to the Secretary of the Municipality to enforce Ext. P21 are unsustainable. 11. A counter affidavit is placed on record on behalf of the Municipality and its Secretary denying the averments in the writ petition and a reply affidavit is filed by the petitioners. 12. W.P.(C) No.24665 of 2017 is filed by the 5th respondent for a direction to the Secretary of the Municipality to enforce Ext. P8 order dated 31.03.2017 therein, whereby the petitioners were asked to remove the unauthorised construction. 13. Heard Dr. George Abraham, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. P. Chandrasekar, the learned counsel for the 5th respondent, Sri. S. Subash Chand, the learned counsel for the Municipality and the learned Government pleader. 14. By Ext. P4, the Secretary of the Municipality, in exercise of the powers under Section 406(3) of the Act has directed the petitioners to demolish the constructions carried out by them deviating from the building permit. The Tribunal by Ext. P6 order set aside Ext.P4 order finding that the same was issued without following the procedure contemplated under the Act. The Tribunal directed the Secretary of the Municipality to issue fresh notice under Section 406(1) of the Act and to hear the petitioners and the 5th respondent and to take a decision. Pursuant to Ext.P6 order of the Tribunal, the Secretary of the Municipality passed Ext. P12 order under Section 406(3) of the Act, directing the petitioners to remove certain structures, which were found to be carried out in violation of the Building Rules and the permit. Ext. P12 order has become final and neither the petitioners nor the 5th respondent have preferred any appeal against the said order before the Tribunal by invoking the remedy under Section 509 of the Act. According to the petitioners they have removed the unauthorised constructions and rectified the defects pointed out in Ext. P12. This is denied by the Municipality in their counter affidavit. While so, the 5th respondent approached the Government against regularising the construction of the petitioners. The Government acted on the representation of the 5th respondent and called for a report from the Chief Town Planner (Vigilance), LSGD, who submitted Ext. P18 report stating that the building violates the provisions of the Act and Building Rules and recommended the Secretary of the Municipality to take action against the building as per Rule 18 of the Building Rules. 15. P18 report stating that the building violates the provisions of the Act and Building Rules and recommended the Secretary of the Municipality to take action against the building as per Rule 18 of the Building Rules. 15. Section 407 of the Act deals with regularisation of unlawful building construction and the Kerala Municipality Building (Regularisation of Unauthorised Construction) Rules, 2018 deals with the procedure for regularisation. The application for regularisation has to be submitted to the Secretary of the Municipality who shall after scrutiny forward the same to the Town Planner who shall place the same before the committee constituted for regularisation, which consists of the District Town planner, Regional Joint Director of Urban Affairs and Secretary, LSGD. From Exts, P16 and P17 it is seen that the Town planner has returned the application of the petitioners for regularisation and it had not reached the committee. It was therefore premature for the Government to take up for consideration the objection of the 5th respondent against regularisation of the construction of the petitioners. Further, going by the date of the representation of the 5th respondent before the Government, it is evident that on the said date, the 4th respondent had not even forwarded the application of the petitioners for regularisation (if received by the time) to the District Town Planner. However, the Government acted on the representation of the 5th respondent and called for a report from the Chief Town Planner and directed the Secretary of the Municipality to take action against the building. The said direction of the Government is without jurisdiction. 16. Under Section 406 (1) to (3) of the Act, the power to proceed against any unauthorised construction vests with the Secretary of the Municipality. Section 406 of the Act reads as follows: “406. The said direction of the Government is without jurisdiction. 16. Under Section 406 (1) to (3) of the Act, the power to proceed against any unauthorised construction vests with the Secretary of the Municipality. Section 406 of the Act reads as follows: “406. Demolition or alteration of building work unlawfully commenced, carried on or completed.— (1) Where the Secretary is satisfied- (i) that the construction, reconstruction or alteration of any building or digging of any well- (a) has been commenced without obtaining the permission of the Secretary or in contravention of the decision of the Council; or (b) is being carried on, or has been completed otherwise than in accordance with the plans or specifications on which such permission or decision was based; or (c) is being carried on, or has been completed in breach of any of the provisions of this Act or any rule or bye-law or order made or issued thereunder or any direction or requisition lawfully given or made under this Act, such rule, bye-law or order; or (ii) that any alteration required by any notice issued under section 395 has not been duly made; or (iii) that any alteration of or addition to any building or any other work made or done for any purpose in or upon any building has been commenced or is being carried on or has been completed in contravention of the provisions of section 405, he may make a provisional order requiring the owner or the person for whom the work is done to demolish the work done, or so much of it as, in the opinion of the Secretary, has been unlawfully executed or to make such alterations as may, in the opinion of the Secretary, be necessary to bring the work in conformity with the provisions of this Act, bye-laws, rules, direction, order or requisition as aforesaid, or with the plans and specifications on which such permission or decision was based, and may also direct that until the said order is complied with, the owner or such person shall refrain from proceeding with the work. [Provided that the Secretary may, on realisation of a compounding fees as may be fixed by the Government, regularise any constructions, reconstruction or alteration of any building or digging of any well, commenced, carried on or completed without getting a plan approved by the Secretary or in deviation of the approved plan, if such construction, reconstruction or alteration of the building or digging of the well does not contravene any of the provisions and specifications mentioned in this Act or the Building Rules made thereunder.] (2) The Secretary shall serve a copy of the provisional order made under sub-section (1) on the owner or the person for whom such work is done together with a notice requiring him to show cause within a reasonable time, to be specified in such notice why the order should not be confirmed. (3) Where the owner or the person for whom the work is done fails to show cause to the satisfaction of the Secretary, the Secretary may confirm the order or modify the same to such extent as he may think fit to make, and such order shall then be binding on the owner or the person for whom the work is done and on the failure to comply with the order, the Secretary may himself cause the building or part thereof, demolished or the well dismantled, as the case may be and the expenses therefore shall be recoverable from the owner or such person. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (2) or sub-section (3), prosecution proceedings against the owner or the person for whom the work is done may be inititated. [(5) Where the Government is satisfied that the construction, reconstruction or alteration of any building has been carried out in breach of any of the provisions of this Act or any rules made thereunder or any direction lawfully given by the Government, or Secretary, the Government may direct the Secretary of the Municipality to cause demolition of such construction, reconstruction or alteration unlawfully carried out and if such direction is not complied within the time limit specified in such direction, the Government may arrange the demolition and cost thereof shall be recovered from the Municipality.]” (underlying supplied) Rule 18 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 reads as follows; “18. Demolition or alteration of work unlawfully commenced, carried on or completed.- (1) Where the Secretary is satisfied-(i) that the construction, reconstruction or alteration of any building or digging of any well- (a) has been commenced without obtaining the permission of the Secretary or in contravention of the decision of the Council; or (b) is being carried on, or has been completed otherwise than in accordance with the plans or specifications on which such permission or decision was based; or (c) is being carried on or has been completed in breach of any of the provisions contained in the Act or these rules or bye-law or order made or issued there under or any direction or requisition lawfully given or made there under; or (ii) that any alteration required by notice issued regarding deviation has not been duly made; or (iii) that any alteration of or addition to any building or any other work made or done for any purpose in or upon any building has been commenced or is being carried on or has been completed in, contravention of the provision's regarding accessory buildings and sheds, he may make a provisional order requiring the owner or the person for whom the work is done to demolish the work done or so much of it as, in the opinion of the Secretary, has been unlawfully executed or to make such alterations as may, in the opinion of the Secretary, be necessary to bring the work in conformity with the provisions of the Act, these rules, bye-laws, direction, order or requisition as aforesaid, or with the plans and specifications on which such permission or decision was based, and may also direct that until the said order is complied with, the owner or such person shall refrain from proceeding with the work. (2) The Secretary shall serve a copy of the provisional order made under sub-rule (1) on the owner or the person for whom such work is done together with a notice requiring him to show cause within a reasonable time to be specified in such notice why the order should not be confirmed. (2) The Secretary shall serve a copy of the provisional order made under sub-rule (1) on the owner or the person for whom such work is done together with a notice requiring him to show cause within a reasonable time to be specified in such notice why the order should not be confirmed. (3) Where the owner or the person for whom the work is done fails to show cause to the satisfaction of the Secretary, the Secretary may confirm the order or modify the same to such extent as he may think fit to make, and such order shall then be building on the owner or the person for whom the work is done and on the failure to comply with the order, the Secretary may himself cause the building or part thereof demolished or the well dismantled, as the case may be, and the expenses thereof shall be recoverable from the owner or such person: Provided that any construction or reconstruction or addition or alteration of any building or digging of any well commenced, being carried on or completed without obtaining approved plan or in deviation of the approved plan shall not be directed to be altered or demolished if such construction or reconstruction or addition or alteration of building or digging of well does not violate any provisions or specific conditions contained in the Act or these rules and has been regularized under the provisions in these rules. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule(2) or sub-rule(3), the Secretary may also initiate prosecution proceedings against the owner or the person for whom the work has commenced, being carried on or has been completed. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule(2) or sub-rule(3), the Secretary may also initiate prosecution proceedings against the owner or the person for whom the work has commenced, being carried on or has been completed. (5) The Government may, either suo motu or on application made by any person aggrieved, after examining the records and hearing the applicant and or the person who has carried out the construction or reconstruction, or alteration or addition of any building or any structure or digging of any well as in sub-rule (1) and Secretary, if convinced that the construction or reconstruction or alteration or addition of the building or the structure or digging of the well has been carried out violating the provisions contained in the Act or these rules or any other rules issued under the Act or any lawful direction issued by the Government or Secretary, direct the Secretary to revoke the permit and or to stop the work and or require to modify the construction and or to demolish the construction or reconstruction or alteration or addition or fill up the well within a period to be specified in that direction. The Government may also directly revoke the permit and or stop the work in such cases. (6) The Government may, if the Secretary fails to execute the direction issued under sub rule (5) to demolish a construction or reconstruction or alteration or addition or fill up the well within the period specified therein, make necessary arrangements for the same and may recover the expenses from the Municipality concerned. (underlying supplied) Section 509 of the Act deals with Appeal and Revision and Section 509(6) of the Act and Rule 160 of the Building Rules provides that any person aggrieved may file an appeal against any order passed by the Secretary under Section 406 to the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions constituted under Section 271 S of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. Section 509 as it stood prior to the Kerala Municipality (Amendment) Act, 1999 (Act 14 of 1999), provided for an appeal to the Government from any order passed by the Secretary under Section 406(3) of the Act. The appellate powers of the Government against the order passed by the Secretary of the Municipality under Section 406 of the Act has been divested and the appellate jurisdiction is now vested with the Tribunal. The appellate powers of the Government against the order passed by the Secretary of the Municipality under Section 406 of the Act has been divested and the appellate jurisdiction is now vested with the Tribunal. Section 406(5) of the Act inserted by (Act 14 of 1999) provides that, where the Government is satisfied that the construction, reconstruction or alteration of any building has been carried out in breach of any of the provisions of the Act or any rules made thereunder or any direction lawfully given by the Government, or the Secretary to Government, the Government may direct the Secretary of the Municipality to cause demolition of such construction, reconstruction or alteration unlawfully carried out. Rule 18 (5) of the Building Rules provides that, the Government may, either suo motu or on application made by any person aggrieved and after examining the records and hearing the applicant and/or the person who has carried out the construction, if convinced that the construction has been carried out violating the provisions of the Act or the Building rules or any other rules issued under the Act or any lawful direction issued by the Government, direct the Secretary of the Municipality to revoke the permit and/or to stop the work and/or require to modify the construction and/or to demolish the construction within a period to be specified in that direction. The powers of the Secretary of the Municipality under Section 406(3) of the Act and the powers of the Government under Section 406(5) of the Act are concurrent. Once the Secretary of the Municipality has exercised powers under Section 406(3) and passed an order, the Government cannot exercise its powers under Section 406(5). The order passed by the Secretary of the Municipality under Section 406(3) of the Act can be challenged before the Tribunal under Section 509(6). Though the power conferred on the Government under Section 406(5) of the Act is that of the original authority, no appeal is provided against orders passed by the Government under Section 406(5). Since the Secretary of the Municipality has passed Ext. P12 order in exercise of the powers under Section 406(3) of the Act, the Government, another statutory authority with coordinate jurisdiction cannot pass an order in the nature of Ext. P19, exercising powers under Section 406(5). 17. Since the Secretary of the Municipality has passed Ext. P12 order in exercise of the powers under Section 406(3) of the Act, the Government, another statutory authority with coordinate jurisdiction cannot pass an order in the nature of Ext. P19, exercising powers under Section 406(5). 17. The power conferred on the Government under Section 406(5) of the Act and Rule 18(5) of the Building Rules to revoke the permit or to direct demolition of the construction can be made only after hearing the person who has carried out the construction. The direction in Ext. P19 by the Government to the Secretary of the Municipality to take action against the building is in violation of the procedure prescribed under Rule 18(5) of the Building Rules. For the aforesaid reasons Ext. P19 is set aside. Ext. P18 report which is submitted behind the back of the petitioners and in violation of the principles of natural justice shall not be relied upon. It is so declared. Exts P20 and P21 notices issued pursuant to Ext. P19 are also set aside. Since Ext. P12 order has become final, the 4th respondent, Secretary shall take the same to its logical conclusion after considering the case of the petitioners that they have complied with the directions therein. For the said purpose, the 4th respondent shall issue notice to the petitioners and the 5th respondent and conduct a site inspection and hearing. This shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Action against any unlawful construction not mentioned in Ext. P12 shall not be taken without following the procedure prescribed under Section 406 of the Act and Rule 18 of the Building Rules. The writ petitions are disposed of as above.