Disposed

Shantha Ramesan v. Corporation of Kochi

Kerala HC6 Aug 2019WP(C)/18720/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ of mandamus directing the Assistant Executive Engineer to dispose of her pending complaint regarding 3rd respondent's construction. Court directed the 2nd respondent to consider complaints and objections within one week and decide within one month.

What did the court decide?

2nd respondent directed to consider Ext.P1 complaint and 3rd respondent's objection within one week and decide within one month.

Shantha Ramesan Vs Corporation of Kochi — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 15TH SRAVANA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.18720 OF 2019(L)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SHANTHA RAMESAN, AGED 65 YEARS, W/O.RAMESAN, HOUSE NO.51/229, THAIPARAMBIL HOUSE, NEAR JOY'S HOSPITAL, JAWAHAR ROAD, THYKOODAM, ERNAKULAM -682019.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.BABU CHERUKARA SHRI.MATHEW C.T

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 CORPORATION OF KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682011.

¶11

2 ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TOWN PLANNING, COCHIN CORPORATION, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682011.

¶12

3 SHOBY T.K., HOUSE NO.51/230, THARAYIL HOUSE, NEAR HOSPITAL, JAWAHAR ROAD, THYKOODAM, VYTTILA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682019.

¶13

R1-2 BY SRI.RAJU SEBASTIAN VADAKKEKARA,SC,COCHI R3 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) R3 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW DEVASSI R3 BY ADV. SRI.ABY J AUGUSTINE

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C)18720 OF 2019

JUDGMENT

The petitioner and the 3^rd respondent are neighbours, who are residing on the side of Jawahar Road in Division No.51 of the 1^st respondent Corporation. Regarding the construction of the building undertaken by the 3^rd respondent, the petitioner is having certain grievances, which are brought to the notice of the 2^nd respondent by submission of Ext.P1 representation dated 25.03.2019, as evidenced by Ext.P2 receipt. Now, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to consider and dispose of Ext.P1 petition pending before them, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶19

On 10.07.2019, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel took notice on admission for respondents 1 and 2. Urgent notice on admission by speed post was ordered to the 3^rd respondent, returnable within ten days. The learned Standing Counsel was directed to get instructions.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1^st respondent Corporation,

¶21

¶22

WP(C)18720 OF 2019

¶23

representing respondents 1 and 2, and also the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent.

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Ext.P1 representation made by the petitioner is even now pending consideration before the 2^nd respondent, which may be directed to be disposed of, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶25

The learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent would submit that the said respondent shall submit an objection to Ext.P1 complaint, within one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, which may also be considered by the 2^nd respondent at the time of personal hearing.

¶26

The learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation would submit that the 2^nd respondent shall consider Ext.P1 complaint, with notice to the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent and after affording them an opportunity of being heard.

¶27

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of, without going into the merits of the case, by directing the 2^nd respondent to consider Ext.P1 complaint made by the petitioner, along with the objection, if any, to be made by the

¶28

¶29

WP(C)18720 OF 2019

¶30

3^rd respondent, within one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, strictly in accordance with law,

¶31

with notice to the petitioner and also to the 3^rd respondent and after affording them an opportunity of being heard.

¶32

A decision in this regard shall be taken, as expeditiously

¶33

as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the

¶34

date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶42

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY THE PETITION DATED 25.03.2019 SUBMITTED BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT, THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TOWN PLANNING OF COCHIN CORPORATION. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 25.03.2019.

¶43

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

¶44

TRUE COPY

¶45

P.A. TO JUDGE

Shantha Ramesan v. Corporation of Kochi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shantha Ramesan v. Corporation of Kochi

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

Anilkumar.T., Vs the District Collector

Vasantha.N.K Vs State of Kerala

Kalpana Davis, Vs State of Kerala

The Palakkadu Jilla Private Bus Operators Association Vs K.K.Babu

Elsykutty K.J. Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Sreejeshkumr M.v., Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority