High Court Kerala High Court

Rajalakshmi vs Corporation Of … on 20 January, 2009

Kerala High Court
Rajalakshmi vs Corporation Of … on 20 January, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 575 of 2009(R)


1. RAJALAKSHMI, D/O.PRASANNAKUMARI
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :20/01/2009

 O R D E R
                                 S.SIRI JAGAN, J
                       - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                             W.P(C)No. 575 of 2009
                       - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                 Dated this the 20th day of January, 2009

                                 J U D G M E N T

Certain constructions made by the petitioner in her property was

directed to be demolished as per Ext.P8 order of the 1st respondent

Corporation. When Ext.P4 show cause notice which culminated in

Ext.P8 was issued to the petitioner, the petitioner filed Ext.P5 reply and

Ext.P6 application seeking regularisation of the construction. The

petitioner’s grievance in this writ petition is that without passing orders

on Ext.P6 application for regularisation, the 1st respondent is taking

steps to implement Ext.P8 order of demolition. The petitioner therefore

seeks the following reliefs:

“i) A writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or
direction may be issued commanding the respondent to grant
permission by regularizing the alteration in accordance with Exhibit-P7
plan and Exhibit-P6 application within a time limit to be prescribed by
this court.

ii) To call for the records leading to Exhibit-P8 quash the same
by issuing a writ of certiorari finding that it is passed violating the
statutory provisions.”

2. I have heard the senior counsel appearing for the respondent

also.

3. The learned senior counsel appearing for the Corporation

W.P(C)No. 575 of 2009 – 2 –

supports Ext.P8 order. However, I am of opinion that having received

Ext.P6 application for regularisation of the construction, the Corporation

has a duty to dispose of the same expeditiously before resorting to

demolition.

4. In the above circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition with

a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6

application for regularisation of the construction made by the petitioner,

as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the

date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till orders are passed on

Ext.P6 application submitted by the petitioner status quo as on today

shall be maintained.

S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

rhs