IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DECEMBER 2010 / 1ST POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 37821 of 2010(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- ALEDANDER CHACKO,S/O.LATE C C CHACKO, BUSINESSMAN IN KUWAIT,REPRESENTELD BY HIS SISTER AND THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER DR.SUSEELA JACOB INNAH RESIDING AT CHERUKARA BUILDING,VALIATHOPPU, SHANGUMUGHOM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SASITH RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,CORPORATION BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY,CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,THIRUVANANATHAPURAM. 3. DR.MADHU NAIR,ASWASAM AYURVEDA HOSPITAL, BEHIND CARGO COMPLEX,VALIATHOPPU,SHANGUMUGHOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. STANDING COUNSEL SRI.P.K.MANOJ KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 37821 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 22ndday of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T Aggrieved by the building being constructed by the third respondent, the petitioner through his sister and power of attorney has filed Ext.P2 complaint dated 10.7.2010 before the Secretary of Thiruvananthapuram Corporation. The grievance voiced by the petitioner in this writ petition is that though nearly five months have passed after Ext.P2 representation was submitted before the Secretary of Thiruvananthapuram Corporation, the Secretary has not taken any action in the matter. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the Secretary of Thiruvananthapuram Corporation to consider Ext.P2 representation and take a final decision in the matter within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. 2. It is evident from the averments in the writ petition and the statements in Ext.P2 petition that the petitioner had earlier approached the Hon’ble Ombudsman for Local Self Govt. Institutions by filing O.P. No.507 of 2009. What exactly is the order passed by the hon’ble Ombudsman is not clear from the writ petition or from the statements in Ext.P2. However under the provisions of WPC No.37821/2010 2 the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 and the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 the Secretary of the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation is competent to enquire into Ext.P2 complaint and take an appropriate decision in the matter. In such circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the second respondent to enquire into Ext.P2, if as on today the original thereof has been received and is pending, after notice to and affording the petitioner and the third respondent a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Secretary shall also cause an inspection of the disputed construction made through the Municipal Engineer and obtain a report or inspect the building himself for the purpose of finding out whether the third respondent has violated the approved plan or the building rules. A final decision on Ext.P2 shall be taken expeditiously and in any event within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps WPC No.37821/2010 3 WPC No.37821/2010 4