IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2009 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 5087 of 2009(E) PETITIONER(S): 1. CAPT.K.C. THOMAS, S/O.K.T. CHACKO, AGED 60 YEARS, KATTAMPILLY HOUSE, RESIDING AT 5-C AMEYA - GOKULAM, SOUTH JANATHA ROAD, PALARIVATTOM,KOCHI - 682 025. 2. ALAN PAPALI, S/O. PERCY PAPPALI, ADVOCATE, RESIDING AT 4-A, AMEYA - GOKULAM, SOUTH JANATHA ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI - 682 025. BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL RESPONDENT(S) : 1. THE CORPORATION OF COCHIN REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, COCHIN CORPORATION OFFICE, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF COCHIN COCHIN CORPORATION OFFICE, ERNAKULAM. 3. GOKULAM ENGINEERS INDIA PVT. LTD., REP. BY MQNAGING DIRECTOR, ANJAM APARTMENTS, 40/871, CHITOOR ROAD, COCHIN-11. 4. TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, ZONAL OFFICE, EDAPPALLY, CORPORATION OF COCHIN, KOCHI. 5. SOUTH JANATHA ROAD RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DR. HARIDAS, SOUTH JANATHA ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI - 682 025. ADV. SRI. S. RAMESH BABU, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 5087/2009 ----------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DT. 11-5-2007. EXT.P2 COMMUNICATION DT. 31-1-2007. EXT.P3 COMMUNICATION DT. 29-6-2007. EXT.P4 EYP1-330/07 DT. 5-12-2007. EXT.P5 NOTICE DT. 23-1-2008. EXT.P6 APPEAL DT. 6-2-2008. EXT.P7 ORDER DT. 10-7-2008. EXT.P8 ORDER DT. 10-7-2008. EXT.P9 REVISION DT. 1-8-2008. EXT.P10 MEMORANDUM OF REVISION DT. 1-8-2008. EXT.P11 ORDER DT. 5-11-2008. EXT.P12 ARGUMENT NOTES DT. 27-12-2008. EXT.P13 ORDER DT. 13-1-2009. EXT.P14 ORDER DT. 4-8-2003. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 5087 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 3rd March, 2009. J U D G M E N T Against the action of the petitioners in constructing a temporary fence around their property, proceedings were initiated by the 1st respondent-Corporation, which culminated in Ext. P11 order of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. In that order, the Tribunal, after quashing the orders of the Corporation, directed the Corporation Council to pass fresh orders on the appeal filed by the petitioners within two months. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent passed Ext. P13, that too, without complying with the directions in Ext. P11 order of the Tribunal. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioners have filed this writ petition challenging Ext. P13 order. 2. The petitioners contend that when the Tribunal directed the Corporation Council to pass orders on the appeal filed by the petitioners, the Secretary could not have validly passed Ext. P13 order, that too, without giving any reasons for the action. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the Corporation also. Counsel for the Corporation today submits that it is true that the Tribunal had directed the Council to pass orders on the appeal filed by the petitioners, and it is the 2nd respondent-Secretary who has passed Ext. P13 order. In the above circumstances, clearly, Ext. P13 has been passed in violation of Ext. P11 order. Accordingly, Ext. P13 is quashed and the Council of the Corporation is directed to pass fresh orders on the appeal filed by the petitioners as directed in Ext. P11 judgment giving specific reasons and considering all aspects of the matter as directed in Ext. P11 order, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, W.P.C. No. 5087/09 -: 2 :- within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and respondents 3 and 5. The writ petition is allowed as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/