IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2009 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 33542 of 2009(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. N.S.SANDEEP, S/O SASI, RESIDING AT NEDIYAMPATH HOUSE, VENKIDANGU, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. K.K.SATHEESH, S/O KOCHUNNI, RESIDING AT KALLADY HOUSE, NETTISSERY, THELLANKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. K.S.ANEESH, S/O SEKHARAN, RESIDING AT KUNNATH HOUSE, MARATHAMCODE, CHOVVATHIL, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. K.B.SANTHOSH, S/O BHASKARAN, RESIDING AT KARIPPAYI HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMPATTUKARA, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.P.S.APPU SRI.A.R.NIMOD SRI.C.A.ANOOP RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CORPORATION OF THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, THRISSUR. 2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER(OLLUKKARA DIVISION), THE CORPORATION OF THRISSUR, THRISSUR. BY SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.33542 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and standing counsel for the respondents. The second respondent has issued Ext.P2, requiring one Louis to pull down a culvert built without sanction, across a water channel. This is in Thrissur Corporation. Ext.P1 photographs are placed by the petitioners to show that a huge culvert has been made across a water course. It is submitted by the petitioners that all that remains is the completion of the parapet walls. This Court does not want to express anything on the merits. But, if the Secretary and Assistant Engineer of the Corporation did not even notice the construction activity at an earlier point of time, it will be extremely uncharitable to the concept of the Constitution of India itself that the structure is ordered to be pulled down in 7 days without any pre-decisional WPC.33542/09 2 hearing. The petitioner states that Ext.P3 is a detailed representation placing various contentions before the Corporation authorities. Let Ext.P3 be take up, considered and ordered in accordance with law by the competent among the respondents. Until such decision is taken, the structure in relation to which Ext.P2 has been issued shall not be forced to be demolished. The writ petition is ordered accordingly without entering on merits. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.23/11.