High Court Kerala High Court

C.P.George Aline George Peter vs Corporation Of Kochi on 26 August, 2008

Kerala High Court
C.P.George Aline George Peter vs Corporation Of Kochi on 26 August, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 24960 of 2008(U)


1. C.P.GEORGE ALINE GEORGE PETER,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. CORPORATION OF KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF KOCHI.

3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

4. THILOTHAMA KARTHIKEYAN, W/O.KARTHIKEYAN,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.N.SUKUMARAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.K.ANAND, SC, COCHIN CORPN.

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :26/08/2008

 O R D E R
                        ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

               = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
               = =W.P.(C) = = = = = = = = = = = =
                           No. 24960 OF 2008 U
                   = = =


               Dated this the 26th day of August 2008


                           J U D G M E N T

The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext. P3 stop

memo.

2. Though several contentions have been raised, I do not think

that an examination of all those contentions on the merits of the

controversy is warranted for the disposal of this writ petition.

3. It is seen that Ext. P3 stop memo has been issued by the

Assistant Executive Engineer of the Corporation. According to

counsel for the petitioner, a notice in the nature of Ext. P3 could

have been issued only by the Secretary and not by the Asst.

Executive Engineer. Standing Counsel, Shri. K. Anand, on

instructions, submits that the power of the Secretary has been

delegated. But such delegation has been given only to the Town

Planning Officer. If that be so, the admitted position is that the

Asst. Executive Engineer who has issued Ext. P3 lacks competence

W.P.(C) No. 24960 OF 2008
-2-

to issue a notice in the nature of Ext. P3. For that reason Ext. P3

deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, Ext. P3 is quashed.

However, it is clarified that it will be open to the respondents to

initiate fresh action in the manner as provided in law.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
jan/-