Posted On by &filed under High Court, Kerala High Court.


Kerala High Court
Capt.K.C.Thomas vs The Corporation Of … on 29 January, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 3007 of 2010(A)


1. CAPT.K.C.THOMAS, S/O.K.T.CHACKO,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. ALAN PAPALI, S/O.LATE PERCY PAPALI,

                        Vs



1. THE CORPORATION OF COCHIN-REPRESENTED
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF COCHIN,

3. THE CORPORATION COUNCIL, CORPORATION OF

                For Petitioner  :SRI.JIJO PAUL

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :29/01/2010

 O R D E R
                         ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                --------------------------------------------------
                      W.P.(C) NO.3007 OF 2010
                --------------------------------------------------
             Dated this the 29th day of January, 2010

                             J U D G M E N T

Ext.P3 is an order passed by the 2nd respondent, rejecting an

application made by the petitioners for construction of a compound wall to

their apartment complex. In this order, petitioners have also been directed to

demolish the temporary fencing put by them. Aggrieved by Ext.P3, the

petitioners have filed Ext.P4 appeal before the 3rd respondent together with

Ext.P5 application seeking stay of further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3.

Orders have not been passed either on Ext.P4 or on Ext.P5 and in the

meantime 15 days time specified in Ext.P3 order for removal of the

temporary fencing is expiring. Apprehending that coercive action on the

basis of Ext.P3 will be taken during the pendency of the appeal, the writ

petition is filed.

2. Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits

that, on an earlier occasion, pursuant to an order of remand, the matter was

reconsidered and that it was on that basis Ext.P3 order was passed. It is

stated that as on date, since Ext.P3 is operative and the petitioners are

bound to comply with the order.

WPC.No.3007 /2010
:2 :

3. Irrespective of the merits of the matter as contended by the learned

Standing Counsel for the respondents, fact remains that aggrieved by

Ext.P3, petitioners have pursed the statutory remedy of appeal along with a

stay petition and orders have not been passed on either of these. Therefore,

at this stage, any coercive action based on Ext.P3 is premature. In view of

this I dispose of this writ petition as follows;

4. The 3rd respondent shall consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 appeal

with notice to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and at any rate

within 6 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. It is

directed that in the meanwhile further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3 will

be kept in abeyance.

Petitioners shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of

this writ petition before the 2nd respondent for compliance.

(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/

WPC.No.3007 /2010
:3 :


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

93 queries in 0.148 seconds.