Disposed

Gopalakrishnan v. the Cochin Corporation

Kerala HC4 Mar 2008WP(C)/3561/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a Tribunal order regarding construction of truss work, the Court, noting pending Corporation proceedings and an interim stay on construction, dismissed the challenge to the Tribunal order and directed the Corporation to finalize the stop memo proceedings within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed; First Respondent directed to complete proceedings under the stop memo within two weeks of receiving the judgment.

Gopalakrishnan Vs the Cochin Corporation — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2008 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 3561 of 2008(Y) -------------------------

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

¶7

K.K. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 64, S/O. P.N.KRISHNAN UNNITHAN, FLAT NO.59, J.M. GARDENS, PALLIKAVU TEMPLE ROAD, VADUTHALA, COCHIN-23.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

¶11

THE COCHIN CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, COCHIN, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶12

THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

THE J.M. GARDENS APARTMENT OWNERS ASSOCIATION, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT, J.M.GARDENS, PALLIKAVU TEMPLE ROAD, VADUTHALA, COCHIN.

¶14

THE J.M. GARDENS APARTMENT OWNERS ASSOCIATION, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, J.M.GARDENS, PALLIKAVU TEMPLE ROAD, VADUTHALA, COCHIN.

¶15

THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (HOUSING), COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM, COMPETENT AUTHORITY UNDER THE APARTMENT OWNERSHIP ACT.

¶16

R1 BY ADV. SMT.A.G.ANEETHA, SC, COCHIN CORPN.

¶17

R3-R4 BY SRI.N.NILAKANDAN NAMBOODIRI

SRI.NARAYANAN RAJA

SMT.M.MANJU

SRI.R.SUDHISH

R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J.

¶24

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.3561 of 2008

¶25

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 4^th March, 2008

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner who is a member of J.M.Gardens Apartment Owners Association being aggrieved by erection of of truss work over the flat complex inter alia seeking quashment of Ext.P6 order of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions declining the petitioner's request to restrain respondents 3 and 4 from carrying out the construction of truss work on the basis of the permit issued by the 1^st respondent-Corporation.

¶28

Detailed counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 3 and 4 defending Ext.P6 order.

¶29

I have heard the submissions of Mr.G.Sreekumar(Chelur), counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Narayana Raja, counsel for respondents 3 and 4 and Smt.A.G.Anitha, Standing Counsel for the 1^st respondentCorporation. Counsel addressed arguments on the basis of the pleadings and my attention was drawn to the various documents placed on record. Mr.Narayana Raja would submit that the interim order passed by this court stands in the way of the construction of the truss work which was taken up by the Association pursuant to an unanimous decision of the Association to which the petitioner was

¶30

W.P.C.No.3561/08 - 2 -

¶31

also a party. Mr.Sreekumar would submit that it is not correct to say that the petitioner was also a party to the decision. The question whether there was unanimity in the decision of the Association to construct truss work is now pending before the civil court. There are other issues also before the civil court.

¶32

Having considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar, I am unable to agree with Mr.Narayana Raja who submits that the interim order dated 25.2.2008 results in hardship to the Association. What has been ordered by this court on 25.2.2008 is that if the Corporation has issued any stop memo and the stop memo is in currency, respondents 3 and 4 will be bound to obey the same. Mr.Sreekumar placed before me certain materials received from his client pursuant to the applications made under the Right to Information Act. The materials will indicate that the Corporation initiated proceedings and issued a stop memo on 25.1.2008. The last submission of Mr.Raja was that pursuant to the stop memo, explanations were submitted by respondents 3 and 4 and the pendency of the Writ Petition stands in the way of the Corporation to finalise the proceedings. Since the Corporation has already initiated proceedings and respondents 3 and 4 have submitted their

¶33

W.P.C.No.3561/08 - 3 -

¶34

explanations to the stop memo issued by the Corporation, it is not necessary to examine the grounds of challenge raised against Ext.P6. I dispose of the Writ Petition directing the first respondent to complete the proceedings initiated under the stop memo cum notice dated 25.1.2008 addressed to the Secretary of the third respondentAssociation and consider the explanation submitted by the third respondent-Association to the stop memo after hearing a representative of the Association and the petitioner. Hearing will be conducted and final orders will be passed by the Corporation on the issue covered by the stop memo dated 25.1.2008 at the earliest and at any rate within two weeks of receiving a copy of this judgment.

¶35

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE

¶36

srd

Gopalakrishnan v. the Cochin Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopalakrishnan v. the Cochin Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

U.C.Raman Vs Secy. Kunnamangalam Grama Panchayath

Radha Purushothaman Vs St.George Investment & Kuries and Others

Henry Mathew Vs the Executive Engineer, PWD

T.Muhammed Basheer Haji Vs the Edakkara Grama Panchayat

Latha Vs Vadakkanchery Grama Panchayat

Sarafuneesa Vs Revenue Divisional Officer