IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID MONDAY, THE 19TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 28TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 38781 of 2010(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- CITY BUILDERS, REP.BY MANAGING PARTNER, P.P.UMMERKUTTY, RAHATH MANZIL, PAYYAMBALAM, KANNUR. BY ADV. MR.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. KANNUR MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KANNUR. 2. T.M.MOHAMMED SALI, S/O.HUSSAIN KUNHI, BENAAZ, BEHIND PLATINUM CENTRE, BANK ROAD, KANNUR. 3. THE HON'BLE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. MR.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE FOR R2 MR.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) FOR R2 MR.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 MR.A.S.SAJUSH PAUL FOR R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.K.RAMESH FOR R4. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 38781 of 2010(W) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: BUILDING PERMIT DTD.2.2.1998. EXT.P2: COMPLAINT FILED BY R2 BEFORE R3. EXT.P3: WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: ORDER OF R3 DTD. 21.8.2009. EXT.P5: ORDER DTD. 12.7.2010 OF R1. EXT.P6: EXECUTION PETITION DTD. 1.1.2009 AND NOTICE. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL ..... // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No.38781 Of 2010 ---------------------- Dated this the 19th day of September, 2011. J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P4 order of the 3rd respondent and Ext.P5 consequential order passed by the 1st respondent. 2. Ext.P4 order was passed by the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions directing the petitioner to restore the area shown in his building permit for car parking. Ext.P4 order was passed on a complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent herein. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that the 2nd respondent has no interest whatsoever in the subject matter of the dispute and therefore the 2nd respondent has no objection in granting relief to the petitioner. Ext.P4 order and Ext.P5 consequential orders are passed based on the complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent. 3. When the matter was taken up for hearing today, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that he is not pressing the complaint filed before the Ombudsman. ::2:: W.P.(C).No.38781 Of 2010 4. In view of the fact that the dispute originated by the lodging of the complaint which does not survive for consideration, Ext.P4 and consequential Ext.P5 orders are liable to be quashed. The writ petition is allowed. Ext.P4 and consequential Ext.P5 orders are quashed. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-