IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 15064 of 2011(G) ------------------- PETITIONERS : ----------------------- 1. HARIDAS, S/O. LATE E.V.KUNJUNNI NAMBIAR, DWARAKA, DUTT COMPOUND, MANKAVU, CALICUT -673007. 2. SUMATHI HARIDAS, W/O. HARIDAS, DWARAKA, DUTT COMPOUND, MANKAVU, CALICUT-673007. BY ADVS. SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI SMT.C.G.PREETHA SRI.T.K.SANDEEP SRI.ARJUN SREEDHAR SRI.ANEISH RAVINDRA SRI.ARUN KRISHNADHAN SRI.K.RATHISH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE HEALTH OFFICER, KOZHIKODE CORPORATION. 2. THE SECRETARY, MEHAVAN FLAT OWNERS ASSOCIATION, DUTT COMPOUND, MANKAVU, KOZHIKODE-673007. R1 BY ADV. SRI. K.D.BABU, SC R2 BY ADV. SRI.R.V.SREEJITH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 15064 of 2011(G) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 16.05.2011. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30.05.2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 15064 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of November 2011. JUDGMENT The writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P1 notice and for a direction commanding the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P2 after hearing the petitioners and till then to stay the operation of Ext.P1 and for other incidental reliefs. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Ext.P1 notice directing to cut and remove 4 coconut trees was issued based on a false complaint filed by the 2nd respondent without issuing notice to the petitioners. It is pointed out that the petitioners were not given an opportunity of being heard or any explanation was called for before issuing Ext.P1 notice. It is alleged in the writ petition that 2nd respondent in collusion with another person, who is the owner of the property wherein the 2nd W.P.(C) No.15064/2011 2 respondent's flat is situated have preferred the complaint at his instigation. It is also alleged that the said complaint is now brought out in retaliation of O.S.No.956/2010 pending before the Munsiff Court, Kozhikode filed by the petitioners against the property owner. The 2nd respondent denied the allegation levelled against him in the writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that the Corporation has issued notice after being convinced about the dangerous situation of 4 coconut trees and that notice was issued on 16.5.2011 directing the petitioners to remove 4 coconut trees which are standing in a dangerous position causing serious threat to the life and property of the residents of the neighbouring apartments. 4. Taking into consideration the fact that Ext.P1 notice was issued on 16.5.2011 directing removal of 4 coconut trees within 24 hours and further fact that petitioners were not heard before directing removal of coconut trees, this Court is of the view that the matter requires reconsideration. W.P.(C) No.15064/2011 3 5. In the said circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider Ext.P2 objection and pass appropriate orders after hearing the petitioners and 2nd respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. HARUN-UL-RASHID JUDGE al