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


Kerala High Court
Maxie John vs The Corporation Of Kochi on 29 January, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 2914 of 2010(L)


1. MAXIE JOHN,S/O.LATE P.C.JOHN,AGED 50
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE CORPORATION OF KOCHI, ERNAKULAM,
                       ...       Respondent

2. SERETARY, CORPORATION OF KOCHI,

3. THE HEALTH OFFICER, CORPORATION OF KOCHI

4. P.N.HARRIS, S/O.LATE NOORDIN,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SAJAN MANNALI

                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.2914 of 2010 (L)
             ---------------------------------
             Dated, this the 29th day of January, 2010

                            J U D G M E N T

The petitioner submits that building No.1/1107A of

Corporation of Cochin belongs to him. According to the petitioner,

in respect of the aforesaid building, the 4th respondent is attempting

to obtain a licence. It is stated that the 4th respondent is nor a

lessee or a tenant and that therefore he is not entitled to obtain the

licence or even to make an application in this behalf.

2. The apprehension of the petitioner is that if an

application for licence is made by the 4th respondent there is every

possibility of considering the said application without issuing notice

to him. Pointing out the above, the petitioner made Exts.P4 & P6

representations before the 2nd respondent and seeks a direction in

this writ petition for its consideration before any order is passed on

the application to be made by the 4th respondent.

3. In the circumstances as pointed out, I see no reason to

decline an order for consideration of the representations referred to

above.

WP(C) No.2914/2010
-2-

4. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing the 2nd

respondent that in the event any application is received from the 4th

respondent, before final order is passed on such application,

Exts.P4 & P6 representations should also be taken into account, and

orders shall be passed only with notice to the petitioner.

The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment, along

with a copy of this writ petition before the 2nd respondent for

compliance.

This writ petition is disposed of as above.

(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

41 queries in 1.221 seconds.