IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2008 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 16290 of 2008(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- K.SREEKUMARAN NAIR, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.KARUNAKARAN NAIR, TMA HIRE SERVICES, T.C.39/2200, (10), ATTAKULANGARA, CHALAI POST, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA SRI.M.S.KALESH SRI.HARISH GOPINATH SMT.KVP.JAYALEKSHMY SRI.M.AJAY (IRUMPANAM) RESPONDENT: --------------- CITY CORPORATION OF TRIVANDRUM, REP;BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION BUILDING, PALAYAM, TRIVANDRUM. BY SRI.P.K.MANOJ KUMAR, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 16290 OF 2008 L ==================== Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T The grievance of the writ petitioner is against Ext.P12 notice issued by the respondent Corporation. Petitioner submits that while he was undertaking construction, Ext.P7 stop memo was issued by the Corporation. After completing the procedural formalities, that was confirmed by Ext.P12. It is stated that aggrieved by Ext.P12, petitioner has filed an appeal before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions and the Appeal number is 253/08. Though the petitioner attempted to obtain stay of Ext.P12, the Tribunal has declined that relief and now this writ petition has been filed on the apprehension that Ext.P12 order will be implemented despite the pendency of the appeal. 2. I heard the counsel for the petitioner and also the senior counsel who appeared on behalf of the respondent Corporation. Since the Tribunal has declined to pass any order staying the operation of Ext.P12, the respondent Corporation cannot be faulted even if it takes steps for the implementation of the said order. But then, the fact remains that the appeal filed by the Petitioner as appeal number 253/08 is still pending and therefore WPC 16290/08 :2 : in case Ext.P12 is implemented, that will certainly cause prejudice to the petitioner. In these circumstances, in order to balance the equities among the parties, I feel that further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P12 should be deferred and the disposal of the appeal needs to be expedited. 3. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions. 1) That the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions shall dispose of Appeal No.253/08 filed by the Petitioner against Ext.P12, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within six weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. 2) Until the disposal of the appeal as above, further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P12 will be kept in abeyance. It is clarified that on the strength of this order, the Petitioner shall not undertake any further construction in the meanwhile. Necessarily, in case the petitioner proceeds with the construction, it will be open to the Corporation to take appropriate action for preventing the same. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the respondent and also before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp