IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2010 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 6415 of 2010(B) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ M/S.SUN SHINE ABODES PVT.LTD, PARAMBITHARA CROSS ROAD, PANAMPALLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, REP.BY ITS MANAGER, PEDRO ROLAND, AGED 40, S/O.CLETUS, ARACKAL HOUSE, THOPPUMPADY, COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CORPORATION OF COCHIN,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, COCHIN. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT, CORPORATION OF COCHIN, PALLURUTHY ZONAL OFFICE,COCHIN. 4. LALIYAMMA GEORGE W/O. XAVIER, LAXAN HOUSE, SREENARAYANA ROAD, PERUMBADAPPU, COCHIN. SR.GOVT.PLEADRE SMT.K.R.DEEPA SRI.S.RAMESH BABU, SC FOR CORPN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 6415 OF 2010 (B) ===================== Dated this the 4th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a company which has purchased 1.32 acres of land covered by Exts.P1 to P10 documents. According to the petitioner, on 19/2/2010, certain persons under the leadership of the 4th respondent trespassed into the aforesaid property of theirs and attempted to cut open a drainage through the middle of the property. Thereupon the petitioner filed Ext.P11 complaint to the 2nd respondent. According to the petitioner, 2nd respondent did not take any action on the basis of Ext.P11 and petitioner apprehends repetition of the incident and therefore this writ petition was filed. 2. The case was adjourned with a direction to the standing counsel for the Corporation to obtain instructions in the matter. On instructions, standing counsel submits that there is no written consent from the petitioner authorising the Corporation to proceed with any work through their property. It is stated that in view of this, it has been decided not to continue the work of constructing the drainage through the property of the petitioner as originally proposed. WPC No. 6415/10 :2 : In view of the submission thus made, I feel the petitioner has no reason to have any further apprehension in the matter. Therefore, recording the submission of the standing counsel as above, the writ petition is disposed of. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp