Disposed

M/S.Galaxy Homes v. Corporation of Cochin

Kerala HC4 Apr 2012WP(C)/16615/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Corporation of Cochin to consider the petitioner's objection to a stop memo within one month, with notice to the petitioners and the Coastal Zone Management Authority. Further construction remains dependent on the outcome. The writ petition is disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent Corporation to consider petitioner's objection to stop memo within one month with notice to petitioners and third respondent.

M/S.Galaxy Homes Vs Corporation of Cochin — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2012/15TH CHAITHRA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 16615 of 2011 (B)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

GALAXY HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED, REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR P.A.JINAS S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN,40 YEARS,KALOOR KOCHI-17. 2. P.A.JINAS,S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN,40 YEARS, GALAXY HOME,SIUP SCHOOL ROAD,KALOOR KOCHI-17. BY ADVS.SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI (SR.) SRI.T.U.ZIYAD SMT.RAMEENA.P.K. RESPONDENT(S):

¶8

CORPORATION OF COCHIN, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,ERNAKULAM,COCHIN-11. 2. SECRETARY,CORPORATION OF COCHIN, ERNAKULAM,COCHIN-11. ADDL. 3. KERALA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, SASTHRA BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (ADDL. R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 29.6.2011 IN I.A.NO.9905/11) ADDL. 4. ANTONY.A.V., S/O.VARGHESE AGED 33 YEARS, ANAMTHURUTHIL HOUSE, CHILAVANNOOR ROAD ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK (ADDL. R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 29/6/2011 IN I.A.NO.10312 OF 2011) BY ADV. SRI.RAJU SEBASTIAN VADAKKEKARA,SC,COCHI BY ADV. SRI.S.RAMESH BY ADV. SRI.M.M.ALIAS BY SRI.P.K.SOYUZ,SC,COCHIN CORPORATION

¶9

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-04-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶10

APPENDIX IN W.P.(C) NO.16615 OF 2011

¶11

EXT.P1	TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED PERMIT NO.KRP1-140/05 DATED 7.3.2006 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.
EXT.P2	TRUE COPY OF THE ROUGH SKECH SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE 1ST BLOCK AS PER EXT.P1 PERMIT.
EXT.P3	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF STOP MEMO DATED 18.5.2009 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P4	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.5.2009 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.13927 OF 2009
EXT.P5	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.6.2009 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.13927 OF 2009
EXT.P6	TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.13927 OF 2009
EXT.P7	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 9.11.2010 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.13927 OF 2009
EXT.P8	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF STOP MEMO DATED 17.3.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P9	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18.6.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF COCHIN.

¶12

//TRUE COPY//

¶13

P.S. TO JUDGE.

¶14

V.CHITAMBARESH, J.

¶15

W.P.(C) No. 16615 of 2011

¶16

Dated this the 4^th day of April, 2012

¶17

J U D G M E N T

¶18

Ext.P8 is the stop memo issued by the petitioners alleging violation of Coastal Regulation Zone area classification. The allegation in particular is that the petitioners have not obtained clearance from the Coastal Zone Management Authority. The petitioners have submitted Ext.P9 objection to Ext.P8 stop memo. The issue is pending consideration with the first respondent Corporation as evident from the facts stated above.

¶19

The first respondent is directed to consider Ext.P9 objection filed to Ext.P8 stop memo within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The same shall be done with notice to the petitioners and the third respondent. The petitioners are free to rely on Ext.P7 judgment and other materials which they chose to produce. It is made clear that further construction of the building would be solely dependent on the orders to be passed on Ext.P9 objection as afore stated. The additional fourth respondent who had preferred a complaint

¶20

W.P.(C) No.16615 of 2011

¶21

¶22

leading to Ext.P8 stop memo would also be heard in the exercise.

¶23

No further directions are called for and the writ

¶24

petition is disposed of as above.

¶25

V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge.

¶26

nj.

¶27

V.CHITAMBARESH, J.

¶28

W.P.(C) No. 16615 of 2011

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

Dated:- 4^th April, 2012

M/S.Galaxy Homes v. Corporation of Cochin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Galaxy Homes v. Corporation of Cochin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anna M.A. Vs New India Assurance Company Ltd.

Saji Abraham Vs the Kadanad Service Co-Op.Bank Ltd.

M.P.Suresh Vs Kerala State Co-Op Bank Ltd.

Pankaj Kasthuri Ayurveda Medical College Vs Anil Kumar

K.N.Marzook Vs a.J.Simon

Antony.a.v. Vs State of Kerala and Others