IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 16TH OCTOBER 2008 / 24TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 27692 of 2008(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THOTTUMPADY MUSLIM JAMA - ATH, SRM ROAD, COCHIN-18, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE THOMAS (MEVADA) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. V.S. RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O. SANKUNNY, RAMARADHANILAYAM, VENNALA.P.O, ERNAKULAM. 2. N.K. RADHAMANI, W/O. V.S. RAMAKRISHNAN, RAMARADHANILAYAM, VENNALA.P.O, ERNAKULAM. 3. CORPORATION OF COCHIN, PARK AVENUE, KOCHI-11, REP. BY THE SECRETARY. 4. THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, CORPORATION OF COCHIN, KOCHI-11. ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR FOR R1-2 SRI.S.RAMESH BABU, SC.COCHIN CORPN. FOR R3 & 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C).No. 27692/08. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1. COPY OF THE PETITION DTD.27.5.08. P2. COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.18.7.08 BY R4. P3. COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD.18.7.08. P4. COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.15.9.08. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: R1(A) COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.905/08 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERNAKULAM. (B) COPY OF THE I.A.NO.5755/08 IN -DO- (C) COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT. (D) COPY OF THE EXPERT REPORT DTD.22.7.08. (E) COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.14.8.08 BY THE MUNSIFF'S COURT. (F) COPY OF THE OBJECTION DTD.23.7.08. (G) COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DTD.30.8.08. R3(A) COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 5.9.08. (B) COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF FACTS DTD.18.9.08. Sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.27692 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 16th day of October, 2008 J U D G M E N T Respondents 1 and 2 are making some construction in a property adjacent to the property of the petitioner. The petitioner filed complaints against such construction activities before respondents 3 and 4. Respondents 3 and 4 issued Ext.P3 stop memo. Since, in spite of the stop memo, respondents 1 and 2 allegedly continued construction activities, the petitioner filed Ext.P4 representation before the 3rd respondent. The petitioner seeks the following reliefs in this writ petition: “(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or such or writ or direction compelling respondents 3 and 4 to dispose of the Exhibit P4 representation of the petitioner in accordance with law. (ii) Declare that respondents 1 and 2 cannot continue the construction, violating the Stop Memo issued under Section 408(1) of the Municipalities Act.” 2. After hearing all the parties, a consensus has been arrived at to the effect that since respondents 1 and 2 have already filed their objections to the stop memo, 3rd respondent can pass final orders in the matter and that till passing of final orders, respondents 1 and 2 will not make any further w.p.c.27692/08 2 constructions. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: The 3rd respondent shall pass final orders pursuant to Ext.P3 taking into account Ext.P4 filed by the petitioner also and the objections of respondents 1 and 2, after affording an opportunity of being herd to the petitioner as well as respondents 1 and 2. The petitioner as well as respondents 1 and 2 shall appear before the 3rd respondent on 23.10.2008 at 11 a.m for hearing. On that date, the 3rd respondent shall hear all parties and pass orders within another week therefrom. Needless to say, respondents 1 and 2 shall not conduct any construction activities in the property in question till final orders are so passed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.27692/08 3