IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE FRIDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2008 / 22ND CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 3809 of 2008(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SACHU T.RUSSAK, SIGNPOST MEDIA, 33/605, DEVELOPMENT PLOT NO.100, SOUTH KALAMASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.ASP.KURUP SRI.SADCHITH.P.KURUP RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, KALAMASSERY. 2. SUDHAKARAN, SECRETARY, KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, KALAMASSERY. 3. THE CHAIRPERSON, MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY, KALAMASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.M.K.ABOOBACKER, SC, R1 AND R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/04/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W.P.(C).No.3809/2008-C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Dated this the 11th day of April, 2008 J U D G M E N T A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the Secretary of the Municipality and it is stated therein as follows:- “Considering the above aspects the chair person issued instructions to the Secretary to complete the further proceedings and to get executed the work at the earliest. Though the Secretary raised some objections about the execution of the work which as per the opinion of the Secretary are against the terms and conditions of the agreement are overruled by the chair person as per the proceedings dated 22/01/2008 and instructed the Secretary to vacate the stay already granted as referred above against the execution of the work. 3. It is submitted that all allegations against the Secretary are unfounded and untrue and hence denied strongly. All acts and deeds of the Secretary are in good faith and only for protecting the interest of Municipality. XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX The petitioner is bound to complete the work also within the stipulated period. These respondents have no objection in allowing the petitioner to complete the work if the petitioner ensures the quality of work and carry out the maintainance as agreed till the expiry of the period. All steps taken by the respondents are in good faith and for the interest of the Municipality.” 2. Considering the above quoted portions of the counter affidavit, I am of the view that the interim order dated 01/02/2008 can WP(C) No.3809/2008-C -:2:- be vacated and the writ petition itself can be disposed of directing the petitioner to complete the work in terms of Ext.P3 agreement within one month from today. The work shall be of the quality sought for by the Municipality in Ext.P3 and also in the penultimate paragraphs of the counter affidavit. In order to enable the petitioner to carry out the work and to comply with the above directions, Ext.P6 issued by the Secretary of the Municipality is quashed. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, Judge ms