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 :