IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2009 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 7275 of 2009(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. VELLAISWAMY @ KANNAN.C, T.C.2/725(4), RAJIV GANDHI NAGAR, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-11. 2. RADHAKRISHNAN, 2B, S.F.MAPPILE APPARTMENT, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, CORPORATION OFFICE, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SMT.RAJALEKSHMI, VELLATTIL PUTHEN VEEDU, PEDIKATT MURI, CHERIVAIKKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO 3 APPEARING ALONG WITH SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR FOR R1 TO 3 SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: W.P.C.NO. 7275/2009. --------------------------------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DT. 12-4-2008. EXT.P2 LETTER DT. 12-4-2008. EXT.P3 COMPLAINT DT. 20-5-2008. EXT.P4 COMPLAINT DT. 12-6-2008. EXT.P5 DO. DT. 19-6-2008. EXT.P6 DO. DT. 26-7-08. EXT.P7 LETTER DT. 2-6-08. EXT.P8 NOTICE DT. 25-6-2008. EXT.P9 NOTICE DT. 13-10-2008. EXT.P10 JUDGMENT IN W.P.C.NO. 36507/08. EXT.P11 ORDER DT. 2-12-2008. EXT.P12 ORDER DT. 16-12-2008. EXT.P13 REPRESENTATION DT. 5-2-2009. [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 7275 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 12th March, 2009. J U D G M E N T In an appeal filed by the 3rd respondent against the order of the 1st respondent-Corporation directing demolition of certain constructions made by the 3rd respondent, the Tribunal is stated to have set aside the order of the 1st respondent and directed passing of fresh orders. The contention of the petitioners is that although the order of the 1st respondent was on the basis of a complaint filed by the petitioners, the 3rd respondent has not chosen to implead the petitioners in the appeal before the Tribunal for which reason the order of the Tribunal is liable to be interfered. However, for the present, the petitioners would be satisfied with a direction to the 1st respondent to hear the petitioners also, while fresh orders are being passed as directed by the Tribunal. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners , learned standing counsel for the Corporation as well as the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent to hear the petitioners also while considering the matter afresh as directed by the Tribunal. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/