Petitioner sought direction to implement an order demolishing unauthorized construction made by the second respondent. Court directed the Corporation to implement the order as the challenging petition remained unadmitted.
Directed the Corporation to implement the order dated 1.3.2008 on production of a copy of this judgment.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/17TH JYAISHTA 1934
WP(C).No. 964 of 2012 (U)
PETITIONER(S):
K.P.HENRY, AGED 59 YEARS
S/O PETER, DRIVER, RESIDING AT KOLOTHIM HOUSE TOLL GATE ROAD, VADUTHALA COCHIN, ERNAKULAM-682023 ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.R.SURENDRAN
RESPONDENT(S):
ERNAKULAM-682023.
BY ADV. SRI.RAAJESH S.SUBRAHMANIAN,SC,COCHIN CO BY ADV. SRI.AJITH KRISHNAN
BY SRI.P.K.SOYUZ,SC,COCHIN CORPORATION
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 0706-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).964/12
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 17-5-2005 IN APPEAL NO. 49 OF 2005 ON THE FILE OF TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF JUDGEMENT DATED 04-10-2007 IN WP(C) NO. 29370 OF 2007 ON THE FILE OF HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF JUDGEMENT DATED 17-3-2008 IN CON. CASE(C) NO. 195 OF 2008 ON THE FILE OF HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 1-3-2008 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 10-11-2011 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
/true copy/
P.A. To Judge
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
W.P.(C).964/2012
.............................................. Dated this the 7th day of June, 2012
JUDGMENT
Petitioner has approached this Court praying for a direction to the Corporation to implement Ext.P4, an order dated 1.3.2008 issued by the respondent Corporation requiring the second respondent to demolish and remove an unauthorised construction he made.
W.P.(C).964/12
Ext.P4 and he has also no case that the writ petition filed by him has been admitted. In such circumstances, it is obvious that Ext.P4 still remains in force and the fact that the second respondent has filed a petition before this Court is no reason for the first respondent not to implement Ext.P4.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
mrcs
/true copy/ PA To Judge
K.P. HENRY
THE CORPORATION OF KOCHI
SRI. EVIGIN
ANTONY DOMINIC
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
