IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2011 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 6100 of 2011(J) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------- YAMUNA RAGHAVAN, "SARAYU", 137, PALKULANGARA NAGAR, KALLUM TAZHAM P.O., KOLLAM-691 004. BY ADVS. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS, SRI.S.SHAJI. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE SECRETARY, KOLLAM CORPORATION, KOLLAM – 691 001. 2. KOLLAM CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOLLAM – 691 001. 3. THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, KILIKOLLOOR ZONAL OFFICE, KOLLAM CORPORATION, KOLLAM – 691 001. *4. BIJU, W/O.GOPIKUTTAN, REVATHY, PALKULANGARA NAGAR, KALLUM TAZHAM P.O., KOLLAM-691 004. *(THE NAME OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT IS CORRECTED AS `BIJI' AS PER ORDER DTD. 04/03/2011 IN I.A. NO.3514/2011) R1 & R2 BY SRI. M.K. CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.6100 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated 25th February, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner filed this writ petition on being aggrieved by the non-consideration of Ext.P1 representation filed by him before the first respondent. As per the said representation the petitioner has raised his grievances regarding the unauthorised construction being carried out by the fourth respondent. According to the petitioner, the fourth respondent is carrying out constructions in total disregard to the provisions under the Kerala Municipality Building Rules and also the conditions in the building permit. In fact, it is pointing out the said facts that he has prepared the above representation. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned standing counsel for the respondents. In view of the order I propose to pass in this writ petition, I do not think it necessary to issue notice to the fourth respondent at this stage. The learned standing counsel for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that Ext.P1 representation is still pending consideration. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P1 expeditiously, at any WP(C).No.6100/2011 2 rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment with notice to the petitioner as also the fourth respondent. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS // True copy // P.S. to Judge