IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2011 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 8546 of 2011(P) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ OMANA, W/O.SUDHARSANAN, AGED 48, OS MANDIRAM, T.C.NO.30/769, PETTAH P.O., TRIVANDRUM 695 024. BY ADV. SRI.AJITH KRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-33. 2. R.BABU, S/O.RAGHAVAN, T.C.NO.30/765, PUTHEN ROAD, PETTAH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695024. R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MANOJ KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.8546 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner and her husband are owners in absolute possession of 3.76 cents of property wherein they have put up a building bearing TC.No.30/769. The grievance of the petitioner is with respect to the unauthorised construction on building bearing TC.No.30/765 being effected by the second respondent in the neighbouring property comprised in Sy.No.865 of Pettah Village. The contention of the petitioner is that it is in violation of Section 383(A) of the Kerala Municipality Act that the second respondent is going on with the construction. In the said circumstances, the petitioner has submitted Ext.P1 representation dated 10.2.2011 calling for interference in the matter by the first respondent. It is the inaction on the part of the first respondent on Ext.P1 that constrained the petitioner to file this Writ Petition. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned standing counsel appearing for the first respondent. In view of the order I propose to pass in this Writ Petition I do not think it necessary to W.P.(C) NO.8546/2011 2 issue notice to the second respondent at this stage. Admittedly, alleging unauthorised construction, the petitioner has already approached the first respondent through Ext.P1. Therefore, without making any observation as to the merits of the contentions raised in this Writ Petition or in Ext.P1, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P1, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and also the second respondent. This shall be done expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.8546/2011 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.8546/2011 4