IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2008 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 8738 of 2008(M) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- APPLE A DAY PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, APPLE TOWER PALARIVATTOM-EDAPPALY BYE-PASS ROAD, EDAPPALLY [P.O], KOCHI-682 024 ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY K.A.SAJU, MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADV. SRI.G.SHRIKUMAR SRI.SREEJITH S.NAIR RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. CORPORATION OF COCHIN, PARK AVENUE, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CORPORATION OF COCHIN, ZONAL OFFICE, EDAPPALLY. 3. SUNIL KUMAR.P.S., 32/966 PALLICHAMBAYIL HOUSE, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-682 025. 4. NIKHINOV SHANAVAS 32/967, PALLICHAMBAYIL HOUSE, PALARIVATTOM , KOCHI-682 025. 5. RAMANI VASUDEVAN 32/975, PALLICHAMBAYIL HOUSE, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-682 025. 6. K.T. VARGHESE, 32/958 KATTITHARA HOUSE, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-682 025. 7. JOHNSON THOMAS K, 32/959 KATTITHARA HOUSE, PALARIVATTOM KOCHI-682 025. BY ADV. SRI.RAMESH BABU,SC , COCHIN CORPN. - R1 & R2 DR.K.P.SATHEESAN R3 TO R7 SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR - R3 TO R7 SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD - R3 TO R7 SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) - R3 TO R7 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NO.8738/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a builder. According to the petitioner, on the strength of Ext.P1 building permit, when they attempted to undertake construction, the first respondent issued Ext.P2, a stop memo preventing the petitioner from continuing the construction. It is challenging Ext.P2, that the writ petition has been filed praying for quashing the same and for permitting the petitioner to carry on the construction in accordance with the building permit. 2. This court by order dated 17.3.2008, permitted the petitioner to continue the construction in accordance with the building permit and in full compliance there of. It was clarified that, in case respondents 3 to 7, on whose complaint the stop memo was issued, had any justifying grievance it will be open to them to approach the competent 2 civil court seeking redressal of their grievance. Though Writ Appeal No.875/2008 was filed by one of the party respondents against the said order, that was disposed of by judgment dated 9.4.2008 leaving it open to the party respondent to seek variation of the order dated 17.3.2008. 3. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, referring to the instructions that he has received, it is submitted by the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Corporation, that it was not the non- compliance of the terms of the building permit that instigated the Corporation to issue stop memo, but the complaint made by respondents 3 to 7 alleging that while carrying out the work the petitioner caused damage to their properties. 4. Now that the stand of the Corporation is also that there has not been any non compliance with the conditions of the building permit, I do not think it necessary to retain this writ petition. Since what is claimed by respondents 3 to 7 is that, damage has been caused, that grievance of the 3 respondents has been duly taken care of by the learned single judge while passing the order dated 17.3.2008 and it is for them to proceed in the manner as provided in the said order. Therefore, leaving it open to the respondents 3 to 7 to get redressal of their grievance, by approaching the appropriate civil court and recording the submission of the standing counsel for the Corporation that there has not been any violation of the building permit, this writ petition is closed. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. 4