IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 6471 of 2010(H)
1. SIMON MATHEW @ T.S.MATHEW, AGED 58 YEARS
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. CHIEF TOWN PLANNER
3. CORPORATION COUNCIL, CORPORATION OF
4. CORPORATION OF KOCHI, REP BY ITS
5. SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF KOCHI,
6. RAJALAKSHMI, SATHIAPALAN,
7. M.R.PADMARAJ, S/O.M.P.RAJAPPAN
8. ANAND NARAYANASWAMY, KRISHNAKRIPA
9. ANAND NARAYANASWAMY, KRISHNAKRIPA
10. R.SUBRAMANIOM, OILIPARAMPIL MADOM
11. MEENAKSHI SUBRAMANIOM, OLIPARAMPIL
12. P.VAIDYANATHAN, S/O.V.PARAMESWARAN
13. M/S.JAYAKRISHNAN & CO.,C.C.41/1272-A
14. N.JAYAKRISHNAN, AGED 50 YEARS
For Petitioner :SRI.N.JAMES KOSHY
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :03/03/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C.) No.6471 of 2010 (H)
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 3rd day of March, 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner has made allegations against certain
constructions undertaken by the party respondents. According to
the petitioner, though a building permit has been obtained by the
respondents, construction undertaken by them is against the
conditions of the building permit, Building Rules and also Ext.P7
interim order passed by the Principal Munsiff Court, Ernakulam in
O.S.957/2009.
2. When the case came up for admission on 01/03/2010, it
was adjourned and was posted to today, with a direction to the
learned standing counsel to obtain instructions in the matter. On
instructions, the learned standing counsel confirms that Ext.P9
complaint has been received from the petitioner seeking action
against the alleged unauthorised construction made by the party
respondents.
Having regard to the fact that Ext.P9 representation has been
WP(C) No.6471/2010
-2-
received and is pending, it is directed that the 5th respondent shall
consider Ext.P9 with notice to the petitioner and party respondents,
take a decision thereon and take appropriate action in the matter.
This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within
four weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. It is made
clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of
the allegations levelled by the petitioner and it is entirely for the 5th
respondent to deal with the matter.
This writ petition is disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg