IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2011 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 10528 of 2011(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- KUNUMOHAMMED, S/O. MOHAMMEDALI, PUKKAT PANAYAPALLY HOUSE, MUNDAMPALAM, THRIKKAKARA, PIN - 682 021. BY ADV. SRI.A.B.JALEEL RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER, ROADS AND BRIDGES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD., 2ND FLOOR, PREETHI BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI -682 025. 2. ROADS AND BRIDGES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF KERALA LTD., 2ND FLOOR, PREETHI BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI -682 025. 3. V.D. RAPPAI, VALAKKETHALA HOUSE, MANGAD ROAD, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-682 025. BY ADV. MR. M. VIJAYAKUMAR, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C)NO. 10528 OF 2011 ......................................................................... Dated this the 1st April , 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers: “i. Issue a writ of mandamus or such other appropriate writ , order or direction directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to consider Ext. P3 petition of the petitioner and to grant some more time to comply with Ext. P2 order. ii. Issue such other writ, order or direction which this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, so as to secure the ends of justice. AND iii. to allow the costs of the petition. 2. The sequence of events as narrated in the writ petition shows that the petitioner had effected some unauthorised construction in the property in question, which was sought to be demolished on the basis of a complaint preferred by the third respondent herein. The order passed in this regard was under W.P.(C)NO. 10528 OF 2011 2 challenge in W.P.(C) 12330 of 2008 preferred by the petitioner and his son, which was disposed of, directing to treat the impugned order as a show cause notice and to finalise the same. Since it was not finalised, the third respondent approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.5280 of 2010, which culminated in Ext. P1 judgment, whereby the concerned respondent was directed to finalise the proceedings within the time frame. Pursuant to Ext .P1 judgment, the matter was considered by the first respondent, who passed Ext.P2 order directing the petitioner to demolish and remove the portion of the building/shed constructed on the land, which made the petitioner to file Ext.P3 petition seeking for some breathing time to have Ext.P2 implemented. Apprehending coercive steps before considering Ext.P3, the petitioner has approached this Court for appropriate reliefs. 3. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the first and second respondents. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would remove the shed/portion of the building ordered W.P.(C)NO. 10528 OF 2011 3 to be removed as per Ext. P2 within 'ten' days and that implementation of Ext. P2 might be intercepted till such time . 5. In view of the limited nature of the relief sought for, this Court does not find it necessary to issue notice to the third respondent for the time being . The writ petition is disposed of granting ten days' time to the petitioner for giving effect to Ext.P2. In case of any failure to do so, it will be open for the first and second respondents to have Ext. P2 implemented, also by resorting to police help, if so necessitated. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk