IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2010 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 33803 of 2010(A) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- T.M.VARGHESE, S/O.MATHUNNI, AGED 62 YEARS, THAYANKERI HOUSE, THRIKKAKARA.P.O., VAZHAKKALA VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.ZIRAJ RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. CORPORATION OF KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOCHI-31. 2. ST.GEORGE'S FORANE CHURCH, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-24, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICAR, FATHER SEBASTIAN VAZHAPPILLY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, PIN-683 517. R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.M.SURESH BABU,SC,COCHIN CORPORATION R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN SRI.LITTO VARGHESE PALATHINKAL SRI.K.T.THOMAS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C) NO. 33803/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 8/9/2010 SUBMITTED BY MR.JOHNSON T.I. BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT. P2 COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 25/9/2010 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. P3 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20/10/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.33803 of 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner who claims that his predecessors have been buried in the cemetery attached to the second respondent church has filed this writ petition for a direction to the first respondent, the Corporation of Cochin to consider and dispose of Ext.P3 representation after affording him an opportunity of being heard. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the first respondent to take appropriate action against the second respondent to prevent the illegal construction and to take steps to demolish the construction done without any plan or permit. The petitioner states that without the approval of the local authority, the management of the second respondent church has started construction of a new cemetery having 222 units adjacent to the old cemetery. Though such a plea is not set out in the said writ petition, Ext.P3 representation also voices the apprehension that once the new cemetery is established, the burial pits in the old cemetery will be removed. 2. A statement has been filed on behalf of the second respondent. It is stated therein that the second respondent Church has no intention to demolish any part of the existing cemetery and that the church has not constructed and is not constructing a new W.P.(C) No.33803/2010 2 cemetery as alleged by the petitioner. It is also stated that the petitioner is not residing within the parish of the second respondent church and that the brother of the petitioner has filed two suits against the church on different issues. 3. The learned standing counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that no application for permission to establish a new cemetery has been submitted by the second respondent and no such permission has been granted. In the light of the statement filed on behalf of the second respondent and the submissions made by the learned standing counsel for the first respondent, I find no grounds to grant the reliefs as prayed for. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.