IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2008 / 11TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 7163 of 2008(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ JO PHILIP ,AGED 41 YEARS S/O.PHILIP,VANDALATHIKARIYIL HOUSE WARD NO.5,CHERTHALA NORTH MURI, CHERTHALA VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPPUZHA DISRICT. BY ADV. DR.V.N.SANKARJEE SRI.V.N.MADHUSUDANAN SMT.R.UDAYA JYOTHI SRI.M.MANOJKUMAR (SHANTHIGIRI) SRI.BABU. E.A.U. RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, CHERTHALA MUNICIPALITY CHERTHALA. 2. KISHORE JAYAPRASAD,S/O.JAYAPRASAD AGED 33 YEARS, MATTAHI,CHERTHALA NORTH MURI CHERTHALA VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT LOCAL SELF GOVERNMET DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR FOR R2 SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR FOR R2 SMT.GEETHA P.MENON FOR R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.7163/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT The prayer in this writ petition is to direct the first respondent to implement Exts.P1 and P2 and to declare that Ext.P3 suit shall not bind the first respondent in implementing Exts.P1 and P2. 2. Ext.P1 is a provisional order and Ext.P3 is an order under Section 406(3) of the Municipality Act requiring removal of the rolling shelter stated to have been installed by the second respondent. 3. On receipt of Exts.P1 and P2, the 2nd respondent, on the ground that he has filed an application for regularisation and that the same is pending before the Government, filed a suit before the Munsiff Court, Cherthala as O.S.No.503/2006, praying that until orders are passed on WP(c).No.7163/2008 2 his application for regularisation, Exts.P1 and P2 shall not be implemented. 4. It is stated that the petitioner filed I.A.No.3034/2006 and got himself impleaded as an additional defendant. That order of impleadment was challenged by the second respondent before this court by filing WP(c).No.27788/2007. This court by judgment dated 1.12.2007, allowed the writ petition holding that the dispute is one between the Municipality and the second respondent and that there is no public interest involved justifying the impleadment of a third party. It is thereafter that this writ petition is filed with the prayer that irrespective of the pendency of the suit Exts.P1 and P2 should be ordered to be implemented. In my view, petitioner cannot seek implementation of Exts.P1 and P2, since he has already been found to be an unnecessary party in the judgment referred to above. Therefore the the attempt made in this writ petition is to get the very same thing done through an indirect manner. WP(c).No.7163/2008 3 This is impermissible particularly for the reason that this court has found that the impleadment of the petitioner is unnecessary in a controversy between the Municipality and the second respondent. That apart, if relief is granted that will have the effect of nullifying the judgment of this court referred to above. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. WP(c).No.7163/2008 4