IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2008 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1930 W.A.No. 363 of 2008 ---------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.31157/2004 DATED 13/07/2007 .................... APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------- THE GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, (GCDA IN SHORT) REP. BY ITS SECRETARY GCDA, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-20. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 2ND RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. LATHA LALAN, KRISHNAKRIPA, CC 18/2012 B,THUNDAPARAMBIL HOUSE KOCHUPALLY ROAD, THOPPUMPADY P.O.,KOCHI-5 2. T.S.VINCENT, PUTHUPALLY HOUSE MARKET ROAD, THOPPUMPADY P.0, KOCHI-5. BY ADV. SRI.K.BABU THOMAS FOR R1 SRI.K.L.JOSEPH FOR R.2 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A.No.363 of 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 26th day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. Though the matter is posted for admission, by consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties to the lis, the same is taken up for final hearing, since the issue involved in this writ appeal lies in a very narrow compass. 2. The first respondent in the writ petition is the appellant in this writ appeal. 3. Petitioner was before this Court, inter alia, requesting this Court to direct the Greater Cochin Development Authority ('the GCDA' for short) to consider Exts.P7 and P8 representations filed by the petitioner for assignment of land in Plot No.212-A which is said to be lying in front of the residential building of the petitioner. Petitioner also had requested for consequential reliefs. 4. The learned Single Judge merely relying upon the suggestion made by the Planning Department of the GCDA has disposed of the writ petition and in that has issued a positive direction to the GCDA to consider the application of the petitioner and assign the land in Plot No.212-A only in favour of the petitioner after fixing the value of the land. Aggrieved by the positive direction issued by the learned Single Judge, the GCDA is before us in this writ appeal. 5. Sri.P.R.Ramachandra Menon, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit that this Court while disposing of the writ petition could have directed the public authority like GCDA to consider the representations W.A.No.363 of 2008 2 filed by the petitioner in accordance with law and in accordance with the statutory provisions which are binding on the GCDA. At any rate, the learned counsel would submit that the learned Single Judge was not justified in issuing a positive direction to consider the representations of the petitioner and allot the piece of land only to the petitioner by accepting certain amounts by way of value of the land. 6. Sri.Babu Thomas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (first respondent herein), sought to justify the direction issued by the learned Single Judge. 7. We have carefully perused the orders passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single judge while disposing of the writ petition was merely influenced by the suggestion made by the Planning Department of the GCDA and therefore, has issued a direction to the GCDA to assign the land in favour of the .petitioner. 8. In our opinion, as we have already noticed, the claim of the petitioner in the writ petition was to direct the GCDA to consider her representations Exts.P7 and P8, in accordance with law for assignment of land in Plot No.212-A lying in front of the residential building of the petitioner. In a case of this nature, there was no reason for the learned Single Judge to have issued a positive direction to consider the representation in a particular manner. In our opinion, it would have been in the interests of the petitioner as well as the respondent to have directed the GCDA to consider Exts.P7 and P8 representations in accordance with law and stop there. 9. Since that has not been done, we take exception to the orders passed by the learned Single Judge. W.A.No.363 of 2008 3 10. Accordingly, we dispose of the writ appeal as under: ORDER i) The orders passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. ii) Now a direction is issued to the GCDA to consider Exts.P7 and P8 representations filed by the petitioner for assignment of land in Plot No.212-A in accordance with law and in accordance with the statutory provisions which govern the GCDA as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Court's order. If it is possible and permissible an opportunity of hearing will also be given to the petitioner as well as the second respondent in the writ petition. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) JUDGE vns