IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE THURSDAY, THE 28TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 9TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 5503 of 2008(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ DR. AMBEDKAR CULTURAL FORUM REG. E.R. 1031/99, PANDIKKUDI STATUTE ROAD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY REVEENDRANATHAN. BY ADV. SMT.PRAMEELA.C.K. SRI.K.A.BALAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. CORPORATION OF COCHIN, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, PARK AVENUE ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CORPORATION OF COCHIN ZONAL OFFICE FORT COCHIN. 3. THE MAYOR, CORPORATION OF COCHIN PARK AVENUE ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 4. SRI.MANI K.R., S/O.RAMANKUTTY ODAMPILLIL PARAMBU, CHULLIKKAL, COCHIN-5. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND, SC, COCHIN CORPN. R4 BY ADV.SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN SRI.S.KANNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 5503 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 28th February, 2008 JUDGMENT The grievance which is voiced by the petitioner- Dr.Ambedkar Cultural Forum who have been entrusted with the construction of a library and open air stage in the name of Dr.Ambedkar and also with the work of constructing a compound wall around the property in question under Ext.P2 order is that there is a move at the level of respondents 1 to 3 to cancel Ext.P2 at the behest of 4th respondent. According to the petitioner, the Corporation is without any justifiable reason interfering with the construction of the compound wall and that is why Ext.P7 stop memo has been issued. On 22.2.2008 I heard the submissions of Smt.Premeela C.K., learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.Anand, Standing Counsel for the Kochi Corporation. The petitioner presses for an interim order restraining the respondents from obstructing the petitioner in the matter of construction of the compound wall. Since merit was noticed prima facie in the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner, I directed the Standing Counsel for the Corporation to inform as to whether the claim of the petitioner that the property in question and also with the duty of construction of a compound wall is correct. Today after W.P.C.No.5503/08 - 2 - receiving instructions, Mr.K.Anand, Standng Counsel for the Corporation submits that it is true that under Ext.P2 the petitioner was entrusted with the property in question and also with the duty of constructing compound wall for the open air stage and library. But the 4th respondent and a few others filed complaints when the petitioner started construction of the compound wall. The complaints revealed that the issue was pending before the civil court also. The Town Planning Standing Committee after some deliberations on the issue has referred the matter to the Council. By Ext.7 notice the petitioner and the complainants have only been invited for a hearing. There is no intention to cancel Ext.P2. The intention is only to resolve the pending dispute over the construction of the compound wall and thereby facilitate fulfillment of Ext.P2 at the earliest. The Standing Counsel placed before me the written instructions imparted to him by the Secretary of the Corporation as well as minutes of the Town Planning Standing Committee of the Corporation which considered the complaints received by the Corporation. 2. I have heard the submissions of Smt.Premeela, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.K.Anand, Standing Counsel for the Kochi Corporation and Mr.Asok M.Cherian, counsel for the 4th W.P.C.No.5503/08 - 3 - respondent. 3. Having regard to the submissions addressed at the Bar, I am convinced that there is no intention at all on the part of the Corporation to cancel Ext.P2 and that the apprehensions voiced by the petitioner in that context are misplaced. There is no necessity therefore to grant relief nos.1 and 2 in view of the stand taken by the Standing Counsel for the Corporation in this court. Coming to Ext.P7, Ext.P7 is only a stop memo cum hearing notice issued to the petitioner in the wake of complaints which were received by the Corporation to the effect that the construction of the compound wall is being done in such a matter as to obstruct the pathway used by the local public. The Corporation cannot be blamed for having issued stop memo cum hearing notice in the light of the complaints received from the local public. The petitioner will appear in response to Ext.P7 and file its objections before the Corporation. It is open to the petitioner to rely on Ext.P6 and any other order of the competent civil court declining injunction against the petitioner. I am sure that in the hearing to be conducted the Corporation will have due regard to the decision of the civil court. Hearing as per Ext.P7 will be conducted and decision will be taken by the Corporation at the earliest W.P.C.No.5503/08 - 4 - preferably in the next Council meeting itself so that the petitioner- Forum will be able to implement Ext.P2 without further delay. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE