IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2009 / 25TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 29401 of 2008(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.P.BABU, S/O LATE PADMANABHAN T.K. AGED 55 YEARS, THOTTIKARA HOUSE, PADIVATTAM, EDAPALLY P.O.KOCHI-24. BY ADV. SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. CORPORATION OF COCHIN REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION BUILDING, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (BUILDING DIVISION EDAPALLY ZONE, CORPORATION OF COCHIN ERNAKULAM. 3. AJMAL, S/O. SADIK, AGED 31 YEARS TAJ MANZIL, POOCHAKKAL P.O.,THYKATTUSERI VILLAGE CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.S.RAMESH BABU, SC SRI.K.ANAND, SC, COCHIN CORPN. FOR R1 & 2 SRI.ANIL S.RAJ FOR R3 SRI.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P. FOR R3 SMT.ANILA PETER FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/01/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No.29401/2008 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 16.9.2008 FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 18.9.2008 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R3(a): COPY OF THE LEASE DEED DATED 10.9.2006. EXT.R3(b): COPY OF THE LEASE DEED DATED 15.9.2007. EXT.R3(c): COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) No.27828 OF 2008 DATED 19.9.2008 TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE S.SIRI JAGAN, J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C)No. 29401 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 15th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that, although on his complaint a provisional order has been issued by the Corporation to the 3rd respondent in respect of allegedly illegal construction, the 1st respondent is not taking any further action on the same and at the same time the 3rd respondent is continuing the illegal construction. The standing counsel for the 1st respondent Corporation submits that a provisional order has been issued to the 3rd respondent which could not be final only because of the pendency of this writ petition. The 3rd respondent is stated to have filed a counter affidavit stating that for the reasons stated therein the 3rd respondent is not liable to demolish the building in question. 2. I am not inclined to consider the rival contentions in this writ petition on merits, in so far as the matter is now pending before the 1st respondent and 1st respondent has already issued a provisional order to the 3rd respondent. It is for the 1st respondent to finalise the provisional order after hearing the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. W.P(C)No. 29401 of 2008 - 2 - Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to pass final orders pursuant to the provisional order admittedly issued to the 3rd respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs