IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 7111 of 2009(H)
1. JAYAKUMAR.D, S/O.DIVAKARAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF KOCHI.
3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
4. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.DILIP
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :05/03/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C.) No.7111 of 2009
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 5th day of March, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Heard both sides.
2. The petitioner’s grievance is mainly regarding the alleged
unauthorised parking of vehicles in front of his show room situated
at Vytila, Ernakulam. Referring to Ext.P4, he complains that though
he made the aforesaid representation to the 2nd respondent seeking
removal of the unauthorised parking of vehicles, the learned counsel
for the petitioner contends that there has not been any action on the
complaint.
3. Heard the learned standing counsel appearing for the 2nd
respondent also.
4. If as contended by the petitioner there is unauthorised
parking of vehicles in front of his show room, it necessarily calls for
appropriate action by the 2nd respondent. However, having regard to
the fact that Ext.P4 referred to above by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is one filed on 01/03/2008, I feel it only appropriate that
the petitioner files a fresh representation to the 2nd respondent.
WP(C) No.7111/2009
-2-
5. Therefore, it is directed that if the petitioner files a fresh
representation before the 2nd respondent complaining of the
unauthorised parking of vehicles in front of his show room, the 2nd
respondent shall take necessary steps for redressal of the grievance
of the petitioner.
6. The petitioner shall produce a fresh representation as
above, along with a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent
for compliance.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg