Aisha Beebi Sainaba Beevi vs The Assistant Engineer on 28 July, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP.No. 11416 of 1998(H)



1. AISHA BEEBI SAINABA BEEVI
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.K.JOHN

                For Respondent  :SRI.K.P.SATHEESAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN

 Dated :28/07/2008

 O R D E R
                         P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
                   --------------------------
                       OP. No.11416 OF 1998
                   --------------------------
                   Dated this the 28th July, 2008.

                             JUDGMENT

This Original Petition was admitted on 19.6.1998. By an

interim order passed on 19.6.1998 on CMP No: 19750 of 1998 this

Court directed the first respondent to see that if no shed has been

put up by respondents 2 and 3 as on that date, the first respondent

shall see that they shall not put up the shed until further orders.

Later the petitioner filed CMP No: 37533 of 2002 to implead the

Assistant Engineer, National Highway 208, Market Junction,

Kottarakkara as the additional 4th respondent in the Original

Petition and CMP No: 37534 of 2002 for an interim order directing

the additional 4th respondent to prevent the third respondent or

anyone else from putting up a shed or bunk in the road puramboke

in front of her building. By an interim order passed on 7.8.2002,

the relief prayed for in CMP No: 37534 of 2002 was granted.

Later, the third respondent moved for vacating the said order by

filing C.M.P.No: 48416 of 2002. By order passed on 12.12.2002,

this Court directed that the interim direction passed earlier on

O.P.No: 11416/98 2

7.8.2002 will not adversely affect the claims or rights of the third

respondent to get any other land allotted without creating

disturbance to the petitioner, at the instance of the Kottarakkara

Grama Panchayat.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

bunk run by the third respondent has since been removed. This is

not disputed by the counsel appearing for the third respondent or

the official respondents. Since the third respondent is no longer

running the bunk shop in front of the petitioner’s building, the

Original Petition has become infructuous. Accordingly it is

dismissed as infructuous.

3. It will be open to the petitioner, if she is aggrieved later by

setting up of any bunk in front of her building to move the

appropriate authorities to have the said bunk removed.

P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE

jj