IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 5087 of 2009(E)
1. CAPT.K.C. THOMAS, S/O.K.T. CHACKO,
... Petitioner
2. ALAN PAPALI,
Vs
1. THE CORPORATION OF COCHIN
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY,
3. GOKULAM ENGINEERS INDIA PVT. LTD.,
4. TOWN PLANNING OFFICER,
5. SOUTH JANATHA ROAD RESIDENTS
For Petitioner :SRI.JIJO PAUL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :03/03/2009
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W. P (C) No. 5087 of 2009
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 3rd March, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
Against the action of the petitioners in constructing a temporary
fence around their property, proceedings were initiated by the 1st
respondent-Corporation, which culminated in Ext. P11 order of the
Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. In that order, the
Tribunal, after quashing the orders of the Corporation, directed the
Corporation Council to pass fresh orders on the appeal filed by the
petitioners within two months. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent
passed Ext. P13, that too, without complying with the directions in
Ext. P11 order of the Tribunal. It is under the above circumstances,
the petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging Ext. P13 order.
2. The petitioners contend that when the Tribunal directed the
Corporation Council to pass orders on the appeal filed by the
petitioners, the Secretary could not have validly passed Ext. P13
order, that too, without giving any reasons for the action.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the Corporation also.
Counsel for the Corporation today submits that it is true that the
Tribunal had directed the Council to pass orders on the appeal filed
by the petitioners, and it is the 2nd respondent-Secretary who has
passed Ext. P13 order.
In the above circumstances, clearly, Ext. P13 has been passed in
violation of Ext. P11 order. Accordingly, Ext. P13 is quashed and the
Council of the Corporation is directed to pass fresh orders on the
appeal filed by the petitioners as directed in Ext. P11 judgment
giving specific reasons and considering all aspects of the matter as
directed in Ext. P11 order, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate,
W.P.C. No. 5087/09 -: 2 :-
within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment,
after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and
respondents 3 and 5.
The writ petition is allowed as above.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/