IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2009 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1931 OP.No. 21337 of 2002(M) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ MATHAI M.PAIKEDAY, PAIKEDAY HOUSE, S.R.M.ROAD, KOCHI-682 018. BY ADVS. MR.MOHAN PULIKKAL, MR.JOE JOSEPH KOCHIKUNNEL, MR.K.B.GANGESH, MR.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY). RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF COCHIN CORPORATION, CORPORATION OF COCHIN OFFICE, ERNAKULAM. 2. ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CORPORATION OF COCHIN, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE BUILDING INSPECTOR, CORPORATION OF COCHIN, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE HEALTH INSPECTOR, CORPORATION OF COCHIN, ERNAKULAM. 5. MS.MELVIN FERNANDAS, S.R.M.ROAD, (OPPOSITE TELEPHONE EXCHANGE) KOCHI- 682 018. R1 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.V.B.UNNIRAJ R5 BY ADV.MR.C.K.ARAVINDAKSHA MENON, MR.K.C.CHARLES, MR.PRAKASH P.GEORGE, MR.IMTHIYAZ AHAMED, MR.A.BALAGOPALAN. SMT.K.SUNITHA VINOD (ADV.COMMISSIONER) THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.36637/2002 IN O.P.NO.21337/2002 M DISMISSED 25/05/2009 SD/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN,JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE NOTICE/ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 24/06/2002. P2: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 17/06/2002 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 18/06/2002. P4: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 4/07/2002 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P5: COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 5/07/2002. P6: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 20/11/2004 ISSUED BY THE HEALTH OFFICER, COCHIN CORPORATION TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT. P7: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 07/06/2004 SENT BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P8: COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 10/06/2004 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT'S LAWYER. P9: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 09/06/2005 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT'S LAWYER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- O.P.No.21337 OF 2002 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT 1.The petitioner filed this writ petition faced with Ext.P1 notice issued to him at the instance of the 5th respondent to chop off certain branches of a tree standing in the property belonging to the petitioner on the ground that they cause hindrance to the occupation and enjoyment of a building by the 5th respondent. The petitioner contends that the said building is an unauthorised structure and the 5th respondent is, without due licence, carrying on the business of running a hotel in that building. He also contends that the 5th respondent has made a latrine flowing into the road side open public drain. 2. The 5th respondent is on record contending that the writ petition is il-motivated and is aimed at wrecking vengeance after the petitioner has failed in his attempt to get off from the 5th respondent the property, which she obtained as kudikidappu. With the passage of time, Ext.P6 is brought on OP.21337/02 Page numbers record evidencing that the municipal authorities have issued notice in 2004 to the 5th respondent on the ground that she is unauthorisedly carrying on activities of a hotel. The 5th respondent, in her turn, would contend that she does not run a hotel, but is residing in that structure and is preparing around 15 to 20 meals a day and supplying to the workers in the locality with the aim of eking out her livelihood. 3. At the instance of the petitioner, a commissioner was deputed from this Court. The Commission report touched different aspects, including the complaint of the 5th respondent that certain portion of her tin sheet roofing is getting damaged by the dropping of twigs from a mango tree aged about 30-35 years standing in the property of the petitioner and also the petitioner's version that two among the main branches were cut off and that there is no inconvenience as of now. The disputed question of facts noticed above in relation to the allegation of the petitioner against the 5th respondent and the allegations by the 5th respondent as levied against the OP.21337/02 Page numbers petitioner are not matters for adjudication in writ jurisdiction. But, taking into consideration the pendency of this matter from 2002, with interlocutory orders thereon, it is directed that the petitioner and the 5th respondent will mark their appearance through authorised representative or in person before the secretary of the corporation on 15.6.2009 so that the secretary could fix appropriate date for the competent officer to hear the petitioner and the 5th respondent touching the matters in relation to Exts.P1 and P6 and take final decision thereon in accordance with law and render the decision stating reasons, particularly when the petitioner and the 5th respondent are entitled to such decision since they have efficacious statutory remedies against such decision. Status quo as on today will continue until the matter is finally decided by the secretary as directed above. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.27/5.