IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 33803 of 2010(A)
1. T.M.VARGHESE, S/O.MATHUNNI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. CORPORATION OF KOCHI,
... Respondent
2. ST.GEORGE'S FORANE CHURCH, EDAPPALLY,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ
For Respondent :SRI.C.M.SURESH BABU,SC,COCHIN CORPORATI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :07/12/2010
O R D E R
P.N. RAVINDRAN, J.
-------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.33803 of 2010
-------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of December, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner who claims that his predecessors have been
buried in the cemetery attached to the second respondent church has
filed this writ petition for a direction to the first respondent, the
Corporation of Cochin to consider and dispose of Ext.P3 representation
after affording him an opportunity of being heard. The petitioner has
also prayed for a direction to the first respondent to take appropriate
action against the second respondent to prevent the illegal
construction and to take steps to demolish the construction done
without any plan or permit. The petitioner states that without the
approval of the local authority, the management of the second
respondent church has started construction of a new cemetery having
222 units adjacent to the old cemetery. Though such a plea is not set
out in the said writ petition, Ext.P3 representation also voices the
apprehension that once the new cemetery is established, the burial
pits in the old cemetery will be removed.
2. A statement has been filed on behalf of the second
respondent. It is stated therein that the second respondent Church
has no intention to demolish any part of the existing cemetery and
that the church has not constructed and is not constructing a new
W.P.(C) No.33803/2010
2
cemetery as alleged by the petitioner. It is also stated that the
petitioner is not residing within the parish of the second respondent
church and that the brother of the petitioner has filed two suits
against the church on different issues.
3. The learned standing counsel appearing for the first
respondent submitted that no application for permission to establish a
new cemetery has been submitted by the second respondent and no
such permission has been granted.
In the light of the statement filed on behalf of the second
respondent and the submissions made by the learned standing
counsel for the first respondent, I find no grounds to grant the reliefs
as prayed for. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
P.N. RAVINDRAN,
JUDGE.
nj.