IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 29TH JANUARY 2010 / 9TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 3007 of 2010(A) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. CAPT.K.C.THOMAS, S/O.K.T.CHACKO, AGED 60 YEARS, KATTAMPILLY HOUSE, RESIDING AT 5-C, AMEYA-GOKULAM, SOUTH JANATHA ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-682 025. 2. ALAN PAPALI, S/O.LATE PERCY PAPALI, ADVOCATE, RESIDING AT 4-A, AMEYA-GOKULAM, SOUTH JANATHA ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI-682025. BY ADV. SRI.JIJO PAUL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CORPORATION OF COCHIN-REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, COCHIN CORPORATION OFFICE, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF COCHIN, COCHIN CORPORATION OFFICE, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE CORPORATION COUNCIL, CORPORATION OF COCHIN REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, COCHIN CORPORATION, COCHIN CORPORATION OFFICE, ERNAKULAM. SC FOR R1 SRI. S. RAMESH BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.3007 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T Ext.P3 is an order passed by the 2nd respondent, rejecting an application made by the petitioners for construction of a compound wall to their apartment complex. In this order, petitioners have also been directed to demolish the temporary fencing put by them. Aggrieved by Ext.P3, the petitioners have filed Ext.P4 appeal before the 3rd respondent together with Ext.P5 application seeking stay of further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3. Orders have not been passed either on Ext.P4 or on Ext.P5 and in the meantime 15 days time specified in Ext.P3 order for removal of the temporary fencing is expiring. Apprehending that coercive action on the basis of Ext.P3 will be taken during the pendency of the appeal, the writ petition is filed. 2. Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that, on an earlier occasion, pursuant to an order of remand, the matter was reconsidered and that it was on that basis Ext.P3 order was passed. It is stated that as on date, since Ext.P3 is operative and the petitioners are bound to comply with the order. WPC.No.3007 /2010 :2 : 3. Irrespective of the merits of the matter as contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, fact remains that aggrieved by Ext.P3, petitioners have pursed the statutory remedy of appeal along with a stay petition and orders have not been passed on either of these. Therefore, at this stage, any coercive action based on Ext.P3 is premature. In view of this I dispose of this writ petition as follows; 4. The 3rd respondent shall consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 appeal with notice to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 6 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. It is directed that in the meanwhile further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3 will be kept in abeyance. Petitioners shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 2nd respondent for compliance. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No.3007 /2010 :3 :