IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2010 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 2408 of 2010(A) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ THOMAS JOSEPH, 32/2024 L, EDACHERIL, SONIA NAGAR, POLASSERY LANE, P.J.ANTONY ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, COCHIN-682 025. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. CORPORATION OF COCHIN, COCHIN, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CORPORATION OF COCHIN, ZONAL OFFICE, EDAPPALLY, COCHIN. 3. SMT.RAGINI ANILKUMAR, SONIA NAGAR, POLASSERY LANE, P.J.ANTONY ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, COCHIN-682 025. ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. FOR R3 SRI.S.RAMESH BABU, SC FOR R1. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.2408/10 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: PHOTOCOPY OF THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE DT.26.05.2009. EXT.P2: PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DT 8.12.2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.2408 OF 2010(A) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T Prayer in this writ petition is against Ext.P2 notice issued by the 2nd respondent, requiring the petitioner to remove certain unauthorized construction allegedly made by him. The main ground on which Ext.P2 is challenged is that the 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction to have issued Ext.P2. 2. Ext.P2 shows that the 2nd respondent was acting upon the complaint made by the 3rd respondent. Under the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Act, it is the first respondent who is the competent authority and therefore the case of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction in the matter deserves acceptance. 3. However that is not the end of the matter. Necessarily, the first respondent has to take action on the complaint made by the 3rd respondent on the basis of which Ext.P2 order issued. Having regard to the above, I dispose of this writ petition quashing Ext.P2 and directing the first respondent to take action on the complaint made by the 3rd respondent. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/