Disposed

I.K. Shekaran v. Thrissur Corporation 4 Others

Kerala HC12 Jun 2009WP(C)/15595/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought hearing opportunity regarding respondent-four's application for regularization of construction. Court ordered hearing for petitioner and respondent-four on regularization before final decision, dispensing notice to respondent-four with review rights.

What did the court decide?

Notice dispensed with to respondent-four preserving review right; petitioner and respondent-four to be heard on regularization application before final decision.

I.K. Shekaran Vs Thrissur Corporation 4 Others — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2009 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 15595 of 2009(T)

¶6

---------------------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

-------------------------

¶9

I.K. SHEKARAN, ETHIKKAD HOUSE, LAW COLLEGE ROAD, THRISSUR-03.

¶10

BY ADV. MR.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

-------------------------

¶13

1. THRISSUR CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶14

2. THE SECRETARY, THRISSUR CORPORATION,

¶15

3. TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, THRISSUR CORPORATION.

¶16

4. MARY THOMAS, KULANGARA HOUSE, AYANTHOLE, THRISSUR.

¶17

R1 -R3 BY ADVS. K.B.MOHANDAS,SC,THRISSUR CORPORATION R1- R3 BY MR.LELLULAL T.G.THUNDATHIL

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

tss

¶20

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

¶21

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶22

W.P.(C).No.15595 of 2009-T

¶23

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶24

Dated this the 12^th day of June, 2009.

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

1.Notice to fourth respondent is dispensed with preserving her right to move for review of this judgment, if aggrieved.

¶27

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for respondents 1 to 3.

¶28

3.The petitioner states that it was on the basis of his complaint that action was taken against a construction being carried out by the fourth respondent. Thereafter, the fourth respondent has presented an application for regularization of the construction. The petitioner seeks an opportunity of being heard in relation to that application.

¶29

¶30

-: 2 :-

¶31

Without prejudice to the contentions of the fourth respondent, it is ordered that the petitioner and the fourth respondent will be heard before a final decision is taken on the fourth respondent's application for regularization. All other issues are left open. The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶32

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

¶33

Sha/170609

I.K. Shekaran v. Thrissur Corporation 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

I.K. Shekaran v. Thrissur Corporation 4 Others

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

M.V. Antony Vs K.S.R.T.C.

T.Balan Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corpn.

T.K.John Vs Aluva Municipality

L.Priyamvatha Vs Shri. K.v.Jacob

Jose Maveli Vs Thomas Mathew

A.K.Subair Vs the Areacode Grama Panchayath