Disposed

Pushpalatha .L v. Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram

Kerala HC1 Aug 2012WP(C)/777/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the Kerala High Court directed the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram to take appropriate action within six weeks regarding the petitioner's complaint about alleged unauthorized construction and environmental pollution, clarifying this does not prejudice her right to prosecute grievances in civil court.

What did the court decide?

First respondent to take appropriate action on the complaint within six weeks, with notice to the petitioner and other respondents.

Pushpalatha .L Vs Corporation of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012/15TH SRAVANA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 777 of 2012 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

PUSHPALATHA .L, AGED 44 YEARS,W/O.P.RAJESH,”LEELAYAM”, KOCHUVADAKATHIL,VSSC ROAD,KULATHOOR.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 583.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.B.HARISH KUMAR.

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,CORPORATION OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

¶11

2. THE BUILDING INSPECTOR, ZONAL OFFICE,ATTIPRA, ZONAL OFFICE OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION, KULATHOOR.P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 583.

¶12

3. SURESH, AGED 45 YEARS,S/O.GOPALAN,PROPRIETOR, SOORYA HOLLOWBRICKS, KOCHUVADAKATHIL, NEAR KRISHNA MEDICALS,PULIMOODU JUNCTION,VSSC ROAD, KULATHOOR.P.O,THIRUVANANTHUPURAM-695 583, NOW RESIDING AT SOORAJ BHAVAN,MANAKKATTU VILAKOM, SANTHI NAGAR,KAZHAKOOTTAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 582.

¶13

4. GEETHA SURESH, AGED 40 YEARS,W/O.SURESH,SOORAJ BHAVAN, MANAKKATTUVILAKOM,SANTHI NAGAR,KAZHAKOTTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695 582.

¶14

R1 & R2 BY SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON, SENIOR ADVOCATE,

¶15

ADV. SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR, R3 & R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SUJESH KUMAR.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-08-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

W.P.(C).NO.777/2012-V:

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶20

EXT-P1:	A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED NIL-12-11 OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY.
EXT-P2:	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 14-11-2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXT-P3:	A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 14.11.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXT-P4:	A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED 8-12-2011 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXT-P5:	A TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PRESENT CONSTRUCTION OF THE UNAUTHORIZED FLAT.
EXT-P6:	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT DATED 5-1-12 ALONG WITH MAHAZER DATED 23-12-2011 PRODUCED BEFORE THE CIVIL COURT.
EXT-P7:	COPY OF THE INFORMATION DTD. 13/01/12 FURNISHED BY THE R.1. ALONG WITH BUILDING PERMIT AND APPROVED PLAN.
EXT-P8:	COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PETITIONER'S HOUSE AND WELL.

¶21

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

Prv.

ANTONY DOMINIC,J

W.P.(C)No.777 of 2012

¶27

Dated this the 6^th day of August, 2012

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

Petitioner has filed this writ petition making allegations that respondents 3 and 4 are constructing an unauthorized apartment complex causing environmental pollution, rendering her life in the neighbourhood miserable. It is stated that despite having made complaints, including Ext.P2, there has not been any action on the part of the Secretary and therefore, this writ petition has been filed.

¶30

Petitioner also submits that the party respondents are proceeding with the construction in violation of the order passed by the Additional Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram in I.A.No.10226 of 2011 in O.S.No.2180 of 2011. According to her, for such violation, she seeking initiation of appropriate proceedings and that she has already filed an application in Court, which is still pending.

¶31

According to the Corporation, construction undertaken by the respondents is on the strength of a building permit issued in their favour on 14.10.2011.

¶32

W.P.(C).No.777/2012

¶33

: 2 :

¶34

Be that as it may, since Ext.P2 has been filed by the petitioner making allegations about the manner in which the construction is now undertaken, I direct that the first respondent shall take appropriate action thereon, with notice to the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶35

It is also clarified that any action taken pursuant to the directions in the judgment shall be without prejudice to the

¶36

right of the petitioner to prosecute her grievances before the Civil Court.

¶37

Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

¶38

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶39

Pushpalatha .L v. Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpalatha .L v. Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram

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

Vettickachal Karshaka Samithi, Rep. by Vs State of Kerala and Others

Maya G.Nair Vs Alappuzha Municipality

Thariyodu Grama Panchayath Vs Vimala

T.D.Babu Vs K.Jayakumar

Kerala State Housing Board Vs Muhammed Ismail K.A. & Others

Elizabeth Mathew Vs State of Kerala