JUDGMENT : A.J. Desai, CJ. By way of the present appeal filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, the original petitioner/appellant has challenged the judgment dated 15.02.2024, delivered by the learned Single Judge in the captioned W.P.(C)No.29187/2023. 2. The issue involved in the appeal is “whether a person who had not challenged the confirmation order passed by the authority under Section 406(3) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, (for short, hereinafter, “the Act, 1994”) by filing an appeal under Section 509(6) of the Act, 1994, can subsequently challenge a notice issued by the Corporation in implementation of the confirmation order by asking that person to vacate the premises within a fixed period of time since the authority intends to demolish the illegal construction.” The short facts arising out of the appeal are as under:- 3. On the allegation that the original petitioner had constructed a toilet at the boundary of her property, in violation of the distance stipulated in the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 2019, a provisional order under Section 406(1) of the Act, 1994 was served on the original petitioner. The explanation offered by the original petitioner not being accepted, the authority passed Ext.P4 confirmation order dated 29.10.2022 and called upon the original petitioner to demolish the illegal construction. It was also informed that in case the original petitioner fails to demolish the construction, the Corporation will carry out the demolition and recover the expenses from her. The said order, which came to be passed under Section 406(3) is appealable under Section 509(6) of the Act, 1994. Such appeal has to be preferred within a period of 30 days from the date of passing of the order. However, despite receipt of Ext.P4 order, the original petitioner did not challenge the same or demolish the illegal construction. Therefore, the Corporation issued Ext.P5 notice dated 01.08.2023, reminding the original petitioner about Ext.P2 and P4 orders passed earlier and requiring her to demolish the construction and inform that matter to the Corporation within five days. 4. The petitioner challenged Ext.P5 order under Section 509(6) of the Act, 1994, before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the ground that the confirmation order passed under Section 406(3) was not challenged and therefore, the challenge to Ext.P5, the 'vacation notice', cannot be entertained. 4. The petitioner challenged Ext.P5 order under Section 509(6) of the Act, 1994, before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the ground that the confirmation order passed under Section 406(3) was not challenged and therefore, the challenge to Ext.P5, the 'vacation notice', cannot be entertained. The said decision of the Tribunal (Ext.P7) came to be challenged by the petitioner by way of filing the aforesaid writ petition. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned judgment, dismissed the writ petition. Hence this appeal. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the original petitioner submitted that any person aggrieved by any order or any notice issued under the provisions of the Act, 1994, can file an appeal and therefore, the Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge has committed error in rejecting the challenge to the ‘vacation notice’, instead of deciding the same on merits. By taking us through the provisions of Section 509 of the Act, 1994, he would submit that the words used in Section 509(6) provides opportunity to challenge any notice issued or order passed under the Act and therefore, the appellate authority ought to have decided the issue on merits and should not have dismissed the appeal on the ground of maintainability. Alternatively it is contended that even if the appeal was not maintainable under Section 509(6), the Tribunal could have entertained it under Section 509(7) of the Act. 6. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the Corporation would submit that the petitioner having not challenged the order passed under Section 406(3) of the Act, the challenge against the ‘vacation notice’, which was issued only with a purpose to see that the original petitioner is given an opportunity to remove the construction by herself, instead of at the instance of Corporation, cannot be challenged independently. He would further submit that the endevour on the part of the petitioner by filing the appeal challenging the ‘vacation notice’, was to agitate the grounds which she ought to have raised in her challenge against the confirmation order. He would further submit that even under sub section (7) of Section 509 of the Act, 1994, no appeal can be filed against any decision of the Council as also any order or notice issued in furtherance of such decision pertaining to Section 406 of the Act, 1994. He would further submit that even under sub section (7) of Section 509 of the Act, 1994, no appeal can be filed against any decision of the Council as also any order or notice issued in furtherance of such decision pertaining to Section 406 of the Act, 1994. Therefore, the Tribunal had rightly dismissed the appeal as not maintainable and that decision has been rightly upheld by the learned Single Judge. 7. We heard the learned Counsel appearing for respective parties. 8. It is an undisputed fact that the order dated 29.10.2022 passed by the authority under Section 406(3) of the Act, 1994, by which the toilet constructed at the boundary adjoining the 2nd respondent's property was found to be an unauthorized construction, was not challenged by the original petitioner. If the original petitioner was aggrieved with the said order dated 29.10.2022, it was open for her to challenge the same within the prescribed period of 30 days, as provided under Section 509(6) of the Act, 1994. The Corporation waited for a reasonable time for the petitioner herself to remove the illegal construction and thereafter issued Ext.P5 vacation notice. In our opinion, Ext.P5 notice was issued to facilitate the original petitioner to demolish the illegal construction after removing all her articles. Section 406 of the Act, 1994, deals with demolition or alteration of building works unlawfully commenced, carried out or completed. The authority initially passed a provisional order under Section 406(1) of the Act, 1994 and after considering the petitioner's explanation, issued the confirmation order. In our considered opinion, if the original petitioner had any grievance against the confirmation order, her remedy was to challenge the same by filing an appeal under Section 509(6) of the Act, 1994, within the prescribed period of 30 days from the date of passing of the order. Section 509 of the Act, 1994, reads as under:- “509 . Appeal and revision.- (1) An appeal may be preferred to the Council against any notice issued or any order passed or action taken by the Chairperson or the Secretary under any of the provisions of this Act other than Sections 390, 391, 395, 406 and 408 or the rules or byelaws or regulations made thereunder. Appeal and revision.- (1) An appeal may be preferred to the Council against any notice issued or any order passed or action taken by the Chairperson or the Secretary under any of the provisions of this Act other than Sections 390, 391, 395, 406 and 408 or the rules or byelaws or regulations made thereunder. (2) An appeal against any notice or order of the Secretary on the leavy of tax, may be preferred to the Standing Committee for Finance in the case of Town Panchayat or Municipal Council and to the Standing Committee for appeals on taxation in the case of Municipal Corporation. (3) Pending decision on an appeal filed under sub-section (1) the Chairperson may, if an application is made, stay the operation of the notice, order or other proceedings on which the appeal is based. (4) Every case in which an order has been passed under sub-section (3) shall be reported to the Council at its next ordinary meeting or at its next meeting along with the reasons in full for passing such order by the Chairperson and the Council shall either ratify the said order with or without modification or revoke it failing which it shall lapse. (5) An appeal under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be filed within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order and dispose of the same by the Council or the Standing Committee, as the case may be, in the manner as it deems fit, within sixty days from the date of its receipt. (6) Any person may file an appeal against any notice issued or any order passed by the Secretary under Sections 390, 391, 395, 406 and 408 to the Tribunal Constituted for the Local Self Government Institutions under Section 271 S of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1996 (13 of 1994), within thirty days from the date of passing of such order. (7) An appeal may be preferred to the Tribunal, against any decision passed by the Council or any order or notice issued by the Chairperson or Secretary on the basis of such decision on any matter provided in Sections 310 to 508 other than Sections 390, 391, 395,406 and 408 or the rules, bye-laws or regulations made thereunder, within thirty days from the date of passing of such decisions, order or notice. (8) Any person may prefer a revision petition to the tribunal within thirty days against the decision in an appeal filed before the Council or Standing Committee, as the case may be, under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), or against any order or notice issued by the Chairperson or Secretary on the basis of such decision. (9) The Tribunal shall, as soon as possible, pass appropriate order on an appeal or revision petition filed before it and the order so passed shall be final. (10) The Tribunal may, during the pendency of an appeal or revision petition before it, direct the Council or the Secretary to stay all further proceedings on the said subject, if it deems necessary. (11) No appeal or revision shall be filed against the levy of tax, if the tax shown in the demand notice has not been paid. (12) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section all appeals and revisions filed and pending before any authority before the date of commencement of the Tribunal shall be handed over by such authority to the Tribunal.” 9. The arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the original petitioner that an appeal under Section 509 can be filed against any order cannot be countenanced since sub section (6) of Section 509 makes it abundantly clear that an appeal under that provision is maintainable only against notices issued or orders passed by the Secretary under Sections 390, 391, 395, 406 and 408 of the Act, 1994. The contention that the appeal could have been entertained under Section 509(7) is also liable to be rejected, since such appeal can only be against any order or notice issued by the Chairperson or Secretary on the basis of any decision passed by the Council. Moreover, no appeal is maintainable under Section 509(7) against notices issued or orders passed based on the decision of the Council with respect to matters provided in Sections 390, 391, 395, 406 and 408 of the Act, 1994. 10. Apart from the above reasons, this Court cannot permit the appellant to raise all the questions which she could have raised by filing an appeal against the confirmation order within the period of limitation prescribed under the Act and Rules, by challenging a consequential notice. Hence, we dismiss the appeal. 10. Apart from the above reasons, this Court cannot permit the appellant to raise all the questions which she could have raised by filing an appeal against the confirmation order within the period of limitation prescribed under the Act and Rules, by challenging a consequential notice. Hence, we dismiss the appeal. However, accepting the request of the learned Counsel for the appellant to grant reasonable time to remove the illegal construction, one month's time is granted for removing the construction.