IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 31ST MAY 2010 / 10TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 15514 of 2010(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.A.RAFI, S/O.ANTHONI, AGED 54 YEARS, CHALLISSERI HOUSE, PANDINNJARANGADI, OLLUR P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THRISSUR CORPORATION, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, THRISSUR. 2. THE SECRETARY, THRISSUR CORPORATION, THRISSUR. 3. C.V.JOSE, CHITTILAPPILLY HOUSE, MISSION QUARTERS, THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS,SC,THRISSUR CORPORATIO FOR R1 & R2 SRI.LELLULAL T.G.THUNDATHIL FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 15514 of 2010-L - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 31st day of May, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner and one Shri P.L. Rafi are having two shop rooms bearing Nos.12 and 14 in C.J. Towers in the first respondent Corporation. According to the petitioner, the third respondent has made certain illegal constructions to the eastern and western side of the C.J. Towers and that portion is shown in the approved plan by the Corporation as vacant land. This resulted in the petitioner along with Shri P.L. Rafi, filing a complaint before the second respondent as Ext.P1. Ext.P2 is the judgment in W.P.(C) No.7921/2007, wherein this Court directed the second respondent to consider the complaint filed by the petitioner before the second respondent. Finally, the second respondent passed an order as per Ext.P3, directing the third respondent to remove the illegal construction made by him. The matter was taken in appeal before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions by the third respondent and by Ext.P4, the appeal was allowed by the said Tribunal. 2. The Corporation has taken steps under Section 406(3) of the Municipality Act and a provisional order has been issued as per Exts.P5 wpc 15514/2010 2 and P5(a). The same is dated 20.3.2009. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even though Exts.P5 and P5(a) have been issued in march, 2009, the proceedings have not been finalised as evidenced by the reply given by the Public Information Officer of the Corporation, produced as Ext.P6. Thereafter, the petitioner has caused to issue a lawyer notice as Ext.P7, and failing to get any reply in the matter, this writ petition has been filed. 3. Heard learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation. 4. In the light of the factual position which emerges as above, it is up to the Corporation, the second respondent herein, to pass final orders in the matter after hearing the petitioner and the third respondent. Appropriate orders shall be passed as expeditiously as possible. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/