IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 5574 of 2010(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DR.THOMAS, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.KURIAKOSE, ITTIYADATH HOUSE, MANNUTHY P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT.R.RAJITHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT, THRISSUR CORPORATION, ZONAL OFFICE, OLLUKKARA, THRISSUR. 2. THRISSUR CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, THRISSUR. 3. ANTO PAUL, S/O.PAUL, CHALOOR HOUSE, MANNUTHY P.O., THRISSUR. MR.K.B.MOHANDAS, SC FOR CORPORATION THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.5574 of 2010 (V) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 22nd day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner's grievance is against Ext.P9 order requiring the petitioner to cut and remove the coconut tree standing in his compound. 2. According to him, he had filed Exts.P1 & P4 complaints against a coconut tree standing in the premises of the 3rd respondent. Aggrieved by the said complaints, the 3rd respondent has filed a complaint against him and influenced the Secretary of the Corporation, and made him issue Ext.P6 notice, to which Ext.P7 objection was filed. It is stated that without considering the objections raised, the Secretary issued Ext.P9 order. 3. Taking into account the main complaint of the petitioner that Ext.P9 was issued without even conducting an inspection of the site, when the case came up for admission before this Court on 19/02/2010 the case was adjourned and posted to today with a direction to the learned standing counsel to get instructions in the WP(C) No.5574/2010 -2- matter. Despite the urgency of the situation, the submission made by the learned standing counsel today is that in spite of having asked for instructions, he did not obtain anything. 4. The premise on which Exts.P1& P4 complaints have been made by the petitioner and Ext.P9 order has been issued by the Secretary is that the coconut trees, which are mentioned therein, are standing in dangerous condition and therefore, should be cut and removed immediately. In view of that situation, I do not think it appropriate to adjourn the case any further, and I proceed to dispose of the writ petition itself without awaiting for the instructions from the Secretary of the Corporation. 5. The first complaint of the petitioner is regarding the inaction of the secretary on Exts.P1 & P4 complaints made by him. If as a matter of fact, Exts.P1 & P4 have been received, necessarily, the Secretary has to conduct an enquiry and pass orders thereon, with notice to the 3rd respondent. 6. The other complaint of the petitioner is regarding Ext.P9 notice. It is stated that Ext.P9 has been passed without considering the objection raised in Ext.P7. WP(C) No.5574/2010 -3- 7. Having regard to this, it is directed that the Secretary shall consider the objection, hear the petitioner and pass fresh orders in the matter. 8. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the Secretary, who shall inspect the site, consider Ext.P7 and pass fresh orders in the matter. Similarly, the Secretary shall also inspect the site mentioned in Exts.P1 & P4, hear the 3rd respondent and pass orders on Exts.P1 & P4 as well. The whole exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one week of production of a copy of this judgment. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg