IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2010 / 22ND ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20510 of 2010(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- T.V.MUKESH, S/O.T.K.VELAYUDHAN, THODUVAKKARA HOUSE, AYYAPPANKAVU, KOCHI-18. BY ADV. SRI.WILSON URMESE RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. CORPORATION OF COCHIN, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE COCHIN CORPORATION, KOCHI-11. 2. THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF COCHIN, KOCHI-11. 3. THE TAHSILDAR (RR), KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-11. 4. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-691 001. R1 AND R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.M.SURESH BABU,SC,COCHIN CORPORATION BY GOVT. PLEADER ADV. MR. BIJOY CHANDRAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.( C ) No. 20510 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 13th July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers: “(i) Call for the records leading to the case; (ii) issue a writ of certiorari quashing Exts.P4, P5, P6, P10 & P10(a); (iii) issue a declaration that the interest charged on the principal amount (rent arrears) of Rs. 2,85,585/- is highly exorbitant, illegal and unconstitutional; (iv) issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 appeal and till then stay all proceedings pursuant to Exts.P10 and P10(a); (v) issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to serve the petitioner a detailed statement of accounts showing the mode of W.P.( C ) No. 20510 OF 2010 2 calculation and other details in respect of the demand for Rs.5,34,368/- towards rent arrears/penal interest till then stay all recovery proceedings pursuant to Ext.P10; (vi) Grant such other reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem fit.” 2. Obviously the main prayer sought for is to direct the first respondent to consider and dispose of Ext. P3 appeal and intercept the coercive proceedings till such time. 3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation, on instruction, submits that the averments made by the petitioner with regard to the pendency of the appeal are not correct and that the appeal has already been considered and disposed of. The correctness of the said submission is rebutted from the part of the petitioner, who submits that no copy of the appellate order whatsoever has been served to the petitioner . 4. In the above circumstance, the first respondent is directed to serve a copy of the order stated as passed in Ext.P3 appeal along with the particulars of proof as to the service of the order if effected already to the petitioner, within 10 days W.P.( C ) No. 20510 OF 2010 3 from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. On receipt of the proceedings as above, it will be open to the petitioner, if aggrieved, to challenge the same by way of appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. So as to enable the petitioner to pursue such proceedings, all further coercive steps pursuant to Ext. P10 and P10(a) shall be kept in abeyance for a period of one month. The Writ Petition is disposed of . P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk