IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 31921 of 2009(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- N.A.SHERIFFA, AGED 73 YEARS, W/O.A.M.KHADHAR PILLAI, ANJIKATH HOUSE, VMB ROAD, PATHADIPALAM, KOCHI-33. BY ADV. SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, P.O.CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR, KOCHI-33. 2. THE SECRETARY, KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY, P.O.CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR, KOCHI-33. 3. THE KALAMASSERY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON, KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY OFFICE, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR P.O., KOCHI-33. 4. M/S.R.F.MOTORS REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PATHADIPALAM, COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O., ERNAKULAM. 5. M/S.UCO BANK, M.G.ROAD BRANCH, RAVIPURAM, ERNAKULAM-16, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 6. K.H.ABDUL MAJEED, S/O.HASSAN ILLICKAL HOUSE, PATHADIPALAM CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR PO ERNAKULAM STANDING COUNSEL SRI.M.K.ABOOBACKER FOR R1 TO R3 ADV.SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN FOR R5 ADV. SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR FOR ADDL.R6 SRI.L.RAJESH NARAYAN FOR ADDL.R6 SMT.LAKSHMI.N.KAIMAL FOR ADDL.R6 SMT.P.A.PRIYA FOR ADDL.R6 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.31921 OF 2009 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT This matter has come up various rounds earlier also. As of now, the petitioner has filed a revision before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. In the last among the judgments placed on record, (Ext.P23), the Tribunal was to decide on the matter untrammelled by anything contained even in that judgment. The complaint of the petitioner is that the application for interim relief is not being considered by the Tribunal. The petitioner appears to have gathered an impression that the Tribunal adopts a policy of issuing stay orders only when there is a demolition notice. Such apprehension may or may not be misplaced, but are insufficient to trigger the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and to issue further interim orders pending consideration of the matter before a statutory body. Under such circumstances, while rejecting the relief sought for in this writ WPC.31921/09 2 petition, the Tribunal for LSGI is directed to consider any application for interim relief, by the petitioner, as filed in accordance with law and issue orders so that if the petitioner or the private respondents are aggrieved, they could seek relief from the competent authorities or courts. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge. kkb.11/11.