IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH JUNE 2008 / 21ST JYAISHTA 1930 W.P(C).No. 16705 of 2008(L) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------- VIJAYAMMA, VIJAYA NIVAS, 47/1425, KUNNUMMEL ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW SRI.B.PREMNATH (E) RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. CORPORATION OF KOCHI, KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. SUCY ANTONY, KOTTUNGAL HOUSE, NEAR ST.ANTONY'S CHURCH, VADUTHALA POST, KOCHI - 23. BY ADV. SRI. S. RAMESH BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 16705 OF 2008-L ==================== Dated this the 11th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that she has put up a building in her land situated in Survey No.1066/3 of Cheranallur Village. According to the petitioner, a tree standing in the property fell on the roof of her building roof causing extensive damages. It is stated that thereupon a complaint was made by a person in the neighbourhood and the respondent corporation passed an order for the demolition of the building. It is stated that the petitioner thereupon filed a writ petition before this court as WP(C) No.24580/03, which was disposed of by Ext.P5 judgment directing Corporation to take a final decision in the matter with notice to the parties. According to the petitioner, orders thereafter were not communicated to her and without serving the order, the Corporation was attempting to implement the same. It is on this apprehension, the writ petition was filed. 2. Today, when the matter came up for orders, I heard the counsel for the petitioner and also the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation. 3. Counsel for the petitioner now asserts that a copy of the order WPC 16705/08 :2 : has since been served on the petitioner. In view of this, it is for the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy of appeal against the order now served on her. 4. However, the petitioner apprehends that unless implementation of the order now served is suspended for a short while, there is every likelihood of the Corporation implementing the said order by demolishing her residential house. In order to take care of this situation, I direct that the order dated 3/6/08 now served on the petitioner, shall not be implemented for a period of one month from today and that in the meanwhile, it is for the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy of appeal against the said order and obtain such orders as are necessary to safeguard her interest. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp