IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 30574 of 2008(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- VILASINIAMMA, W/O. LATE MADHU, AGED 78 YEARS, EASWARA VILASAM, SOYUS LANE, K.P. VALLON ROAD, KADAVANTHRA. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SRI.N.A.SHAFEEK RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CORPORATION OF KOCHI, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF CORPORATION OF KOCHI, NEAR BOAT JETTY, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-11. 2. THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-11. 3. THE HEALTH OFFICER, CORPORATION OF KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-11. 4. THE HEALTH INSPECTOR, HEALTH CIRLCE NO.12, CORPORATION OF KOCHI. 5. SUSEELA M. VISWANATHAN, AYYAN KANDAZHATHU HOUSE, OPP. DEVI TEMPLE, KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI-20. ADV. SRI.K.ANAND, SC, COCHIN CORPN. FOR R1 TO 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 30574 of 2008 EXT.P1: COPY OF ORDER DATED 8/9/08 RDO, FORT KOCHI. EXT.P2; COPY OF LETTER SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER WITH ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FROM OFFICE OF RDO. EXT.P3: COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE COCONUT TREE SITUATED IN THE PROPERTY OF PETITIONER. EXT.P4: COPY OF ORDER DATED 29.9.08 OF 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF REPLY TO LETTER DATED 16/7/08. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.30574 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court challenging proceedings initiated by the Corporation for cutting down a coconut tree belonging to the petitioner, on a complaint of the 5th respondent who is a neighbor of the petitioner, in spite of the fact that the matter was finally decided by the RDO and the RDO had stipulated certain conditions for keeping the tree out of mischief, which conditions the petitioner has fully complied with as evidenced by the documents produced by the petitioner along with the writ petition. 2. The Corporation has filed a counter affidavit, in paragraph 6 of which it is stated thus: “6. The petitioner had already filed a petition with regard to the same issue before RDO. As directed the RDO, the petitioner has taken all requisites steps i.e. tying the coconut tree with steel string etc. and has thus made the coconut tree in such a position that it is at present in a harmless situation. Hence steps initiated by the Corporation for cutting and removing the coconut tree of the petitioner have been stopped”. W.P.(c)No.30574/08 2 In view of the said submission, nothing further needs to be done in this writ petition except to record the said averments in the counter affidavit and to direct the Corporation to comply with the same. Ordered accordingly and the writ petition is disposed of. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDG Acd W.P.(c)No.30574/08 3