IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 30TH OCTOBER 2009 / 8TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 30530 of 2009(O) -------------------------- OS.1144/2009 of II ADDL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM .................... PETITIONER: --------------- MARY BEENA JOSEPH @ BEENA PAUL 'ARCHANA' T.C.IV/1783 (1) KAWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. MR. PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,REPRESENTED BY IS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PH DIVISION,KERALA WATER AUTHORITY VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. MS.S.AMBIKA DEVI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ----------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.30530 of 2009 - O --------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “i) To call for the records leading to the issuance of Ext.P10 and set aside the same. ii) To issue an order of injunction restraining the respondents from enforcing Ext.P5 notice, till the disposal of O.S.No.1144/2009 of the Second Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram.” 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.1144 of 2009 on the file of the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Suit is one for declaration for setting aside a notice issued by the first defendant and for perpetual prohibitory injunction. First defendant, Water Authority, after enquiry, issued notices to several persons who are alleged to have put up structures over the land under which water pipelines had been laid by the Authority, directing them to remove such structures. Pursuant thereto, some of the persons who received such notices filed suits, writ petitions etc., and, admittedly, in some cases, interim orders had been passed restraining the Water Authority from giving effect to the action W.P.(C).No.30530 of 2009 - O 2 contemplated in their notice. Petitioner/plaintiff who also received one such notice from the first defendant has filed the above suit seeking a decree as aforementioned. In the suit, petitioner has applied for an interim injunction restraining the first defendant from taking any action to demolish her car shed which is alleged to have been put up over land under which a pipeline had been laid. That application was adjourned from time to time and no orders passed thereof, is the grievance espoused in the writ petition seeking issue of writ, direction or order to the court below for an expeditious hearing and disposal of that petition. 3. Notice being given, Standing Counsel for the respondents has entered appearance. I heard the counsel on both sides. 4. Having regard to the submissions made and taking note of the facts and circumstances presented, I find an expeditious hearing and disposal of Ext.P7 application moved by the petitioner/plaintiff in the suit is necessary to advance the ends of justice. It is reported that the application stands posted W.P.(C).No.30530 of 2009 - O 3 for hearing on 5.11.2009. Respondents/defendants, it is submitted, have not filed their objections so far. The respondents shall file their objections, if any, to Ext.P7 application within two weeks. The court below shall dispose Ext.P7 application, whether or not, any objections are filed by the defendants, within a period of one month from the date of this judgment. The respondents are directed not to take any steps against the petitioner or plaint property pursuant to the notice issued for a period of one month from today or till the passing of, and subject to the orders in Ext.P7 application by the court below, whichever is earlier. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed. Hand over a copy of the judgment to the counsel on both sides on usual terms and send a copy to the court concerned forthwith. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE. bkn/-