IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 25TH OCTOBER 2007 / 3RD KARTHIKA 1929 WP(C).No. 31717 of 2007(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ VICTORIA THOMAS, AGED 44, W/O. THOMAS, CHENNOTH HOUSE, AVITTAMPILLY LANE, CHUTTUPADUKARA, EDAPPALLY P.O., COCHIN-25. BY ADV. SMT.T.S.MAYA (THIYADIL) SMT.REKHA NAIR SMT.K.REENA RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CORPORATION OF KOCHI, EDAPPALLY ZONAL OFFICE, ANCHUMANA ROAD, EDAPPALLY. 2. BUILDING INSPECTOR, WARD NO.35, CORPORATION OF KOCHI, EDAPPALLY ZONAL OFFICE, ANCHUMANA ROAD, EDAPPALLY. 3. ALEXANDER, AGED 42, S/O. XAVIER, MANDEKKAT HOUSE, AVITTAMPILLY LANE, CHUTTUPADUKARA, EDAPPALLY P.O., COCHIN-35. ADDL. 4. THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF KOCHI, CENTRAL OFFICE. ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED SUO MOTU VIDE ORDER DT.25.10.07 IN THE WRIT PETITION. R1, R2, ADDL.R4 BY ADV.SRI.C.M.SURESH BABU. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/10/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. .......................................................... W.P.(C)No.31717 OF 2007 ........................................................... DATED THIS THE 25TH OCTOBER, 2007 J U D G M E N T Mr.C.M.Suresh Babu, Standing Counsel takes notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. In the nature of the order which is being passed hereunder, in my opinion, it is not necessary that this Court issues notice to the 3rd respondent. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent has, by his illegal acts, reduced the width of a Corporation drainage. She has submitted Exts.P3 to P6 complaints and she submits that no action has so far been taken by the Corporation. The 1st respondent before whom Exts.P3 to P6 have been submitted by the petitioner is directed to make over those complaints to the additional 4th respondent. The additional 4th respondent will issue notice to the 3rd respondent, conduct such enquiries as are necessary and take a decision on Exts.P3 to P6 at the earliest and at any rate within two months of receiving copy of this judgment. The additional 4th respondent will ensure that immediate local inspection is conducted by the 1st respondent or any other competent officer under him and if report reveals that the allegations in Exts.P3 to P6 are correct, appropriate orders should be passed so as to stop further illegalities. tgl (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) WP(C)N0. -2- tgl WP(C)N0. -3-