IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN FRIDAY, THE 24TH APRIL 2009 / 4TH VAISAKHA 1931 WP(C).No. 12458 of 2009(B) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- T.P.RAMLA, AGED 66 YEARS, W/O.SRI.MAMMOO, PATTOTHIL HOUSE, THALASSERY. BY ADVS. MR.BABU KARUKAPADATH, MR.K.A.NOUSHAD, MR.P.G.PRAMOD. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. CORPORATION OF KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ERNAKULAM. 2. COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF KOCHI, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY THE MAYOR. 3. HEALTH INSPECTOR, KALOOR CIRCLE, CORPORATION OF KOCHI, KALOOR. 4. C.J.BENEDICT @ BENNY, S/O.LATE C.J.JOHN, RESIDING AT CHAMMANICODATH HOUSE, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. MR. S.RAMESH BABU, SC,KOCHI CORPORATION THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V.K.MOHANAN, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No. 12458 of 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of April, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the tenant of one of the rooms bearing Door No.14/488 and is conducting hotel and C class business. According to the petitioner, the said room is the middle room of a line building consisting of 12 rooms with common roofing. The third respondent is the owner of the said building including the room occupied by the petitioner. The Additional Secretary, Corporation of Cochin, Ernakulam issued proceedings No.MOH. 15/13643/05 dated 17.3.2009 stating that the licence for conducting the hotel business is cancelled, since the building was in a dilapidated condition. Now, Ext.P8 appeal is pending before the Council, Corporation of Cochin, represented by Mayor. The apprehension of the petitioner is that the room, which is occupied by the petitioner, is likely to be demolished by the officers of the Corporation or they likely to interfere with the hotel and C- Class business being conducted by the petitioner, even during the pendency of the said appeal. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the Standing Counsel for the Corporation of Cochin. 3. As the statutory appeal is pending for consideration, WP(C) NO.12458 of 2009 :-2-: I am not proposed to enter into any discussion or finding regarding the merit of the case of the petitioner. It is only just and proper to relegate the petitioner to pursue the remedy which she had already initiated by filing Ext.P8 appeal. If the officers of the Corporation are allowed to demolish the building or interfere with the trade business conducted by the petitioner, the appeal will become infructuous and therefore, justice demands that the officers of the Corporation shall be prevented from resorting any such act during the pendency of the appeal. In the result, there will be a direction to the second respondent to take up Ext.P8 appeal and to consider the same on merit, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as all affected parties and to dispose of the same, as expeditiously possible, at any rate within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. There will be a further direction to the respondents to maintain status quo as on today till the disposal of Ext.P8 appeal. The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. MBS/ V.K.Mohanan, Judge WP(C) NO.12458 of 2009 :-3-: V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------- Crl.A.NO. OF 200 -------------------------------------------- WP(C) NO.12458 of 2009 :-4-: J U D G M E N T DATED: -3-2009 WP(C) NO.12458 of 2009 :-5-: