IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER TUESDAY, THE 23RD SEPTEMBER 2008 / 1ST ASWINA 1930 W.A.No. 1819 of 2008 ------------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.10933/2007 DATED 04/07/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- M.M.YACOOB , S/O. MOHAMMED IBRAHIM, AGED 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT CRA 74 B, VAZHOTTUKONAM, VATTIYOORKAVU, TRIVANDRUM -13 PROPRIETOR, BUNK NO.407 MUSEUM EAST GATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA SRI.M.S.KALESH SRI.HARISH GOPINATH SRI.V.VINAY MENON SMT.KVP.JAYALEKSHMY RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LOCAL ADINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, GOVT.OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT ANNEX BUILDING, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE CITY CORPORATION OF TRIVANDRUM, CORPORATION BUILDING, TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. M.SAINULABDEEN, SAJI HOUSE, T.C. 5/931, PERURKADA, TRIVANDRUM 695 005 W.A.NO.1819 OF 2008 - 2 - 4. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE TRIVANDRUM CITY, TRIVANDRUM. R1 & R4 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA R2 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR) & ADV.SRI.MANOJ KUMAR R3 BY ADV.SRI.M.DINESH THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------- W.A. No. 1819 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 23rd day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. Being aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.10933 of 2007 dated 4th July, 2008, the petitioner in the writ petition is before us in this writ appeal. (2) In the writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner was that the third respondent is running a bunk shop illegally and, therefore, the same requires to be removed by the Corporation authorities. (3) The learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition is of the opinion that since the Corporation is prevented by an order passed by the State Government, the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. Accordingly, the learned Judge has rejected the writ petition. (4) It is the correctness or otherwise of the said observation made by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition is the subject matter of this writ appeal. (5) When the matter had come before the Court on the last date of hearing, we had asked Sri.N.Nandakumara Menon, learned Senior W.A.No.1819 of 2008 2 Counsel appearing for the Corporation, whether the letter of a Minister would prevent them from taking appropriate proceedings against the third respondent who is admittedly in illegal occupation of the bunk shop, the learned Senior Counsel had taken time to secure appropriate instructions from the Corporation. (6) When the matter is posted for admission before Court today, Sri.N.Nandakumara Menon, learned Senior Counsel, on instructions, would submit that the Corporation authorities have removed the bunk shop of the third respondent. (7) In view of this development, in our opinion, at this stage, nothing survives in this writ appeal for our consideration and decision. Therefore, the writ appeal is disposed of as having become unnecessary. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE vns