IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 30504 of 2008(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.P.BABU, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.PADMANABHAN RESIDING AT THUNDIPARAMBIL HOUSE, VATHURUTHY, MALSYAPURI.P.O, KOCHI-29. BY ADV. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU SRI.JAGAN GEORGE SRI.K.A.NOUSHAD SRI.P.G.PRAMOD RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KOCHI CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ERNAKULAM. 2. T.R.SABU, S/O.RAVEENDRAN, RESIDING AT THUNDIPARAMBIL HOUSE, VATHURUTHY,MALSYAPURI.P.O, KOCHI-29. ADV. SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN FOR R2 SMT.P.A.ANITHA FOR R2 SRI.PRAVEEN K.JOY,SC,COCHIN CORPORATION FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.30504 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 27th day of November, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has filed this writ petition aggrieved by the oral direction issued by the 1st respondent to demolish a building constructed by the petitioner alleging that the same is unauthorised. In the counter affidavit filed it is stated that proceedings were initiated in accordance with Ext.R2(b) judgment of this Court. The petitioner submits that in Ext.R2(b) there is no direction to demolish the building of the petitioner. On the other hand, what is directed in Ext.R2(b) judgment of this Court in W.P(C).No.16012/2008 is only to consider and pass orders on Ext.P1 produced along with the writ petition, with notice to the petitioner herein. The petitioner further points out that by Ext.P5 notice, the petitioner has been informed that, in that judgment the High Court had directed the Corporation to demolish the building and therefore, the petitioner should demolish the building within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice. Since in Exts.R2(b) judgment there is no direction as stated in Ext.P5, I directed the Assistant Executive Engineer of the Corporation, who has issued Ext.P5, to file an affidavit stating as w.p.c.30504/08 2 to why he has stated so in Ext.P5, although there is no such direction in Ext.R2(b) judgment. The Assistant Executive Engineer has now filed an affidavit to the following effect: “3. At the very outset, I may be permitted to tender an unconditional apology to this Hon'ble court. It was an erroneous mistake which led to the issuance of such a notice dated 08.08.08. The wrong note advice and contempt notice pressurisation led to such mistake for which I apologise unconditionally before this Hon'ble court. Immediately the said notice has been cancelled and fresh notice for hearing has been given to both parties to be heard on 28.11.08 at 11 A.M. at Fort Kochi office. Hence it is humbly prayed that the unconditional apology may be accepted in the interest of justice.” I am not at all happy with the conduct of the Assistant Executive Engineer. His explanation also does not appear to be convincing. However, taking a lenient view, in view of the fact that the notice has been withdrawn, I dispose of this writ petition with the following directions: The 1st respondent shall pass appropriate orders as directed in Ext.R2(b) judgment as expeditiously as possible. It would be open to the petitioner to file an appeal against the order to be so passed, if the order is adverse to him and seek appropriate orders from the appellate authority. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.30504/08 3 The writ petition is disposed of as above. sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE