IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 25TH JANUARY 2008 / 5TH MAGHA 1929 OP.No. 4627 of 2001(A) -------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- K.K. PRABHAKARAN, MIG.14, GURUKULAM, MYTHIRI NAGAR, VADUTHALA, KOCHI-23. BY ADV. SRI.KENNETH GEORGE, SRI.P.RAVINDRA NATH. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- SECRETARY, GREATER COCHIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-20. BY ADV. SRI. JIMMY GEORGE, SC, GCDA. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/01/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON C.M.P. NO. 7667/2001 IN O.P. NO. 4627/2001-A DISMISSED 25/01/2008. SD/- T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DT. 21/03/86. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DT. 23/07/86. EXT.P.3.A: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER DT. 10/11/94. EXT.P.3.B: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER, DT. 23/06/98. EXT.P.3.C: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER DT. 29/05/99. EXT.P.3.D: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER DT. 24/11/99. EXT.P.4.A: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DTD. 01/06/98. EXT.P.4.B: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT, DT. 11/05/99. EXT.P.4.C: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT, DT. 09/08/99. EXT.P.4.D: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DT. 05/11/99. EXT.P.4.E: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DT. 01/01/2000. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DT. 23/01/2001. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF ORDER FOR CONSTRUCTION AND FUTURE EXPANSION ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT, DTD. 14/07/1982. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// prv. T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.NO.4627 of 2001-A - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of January, 2008. JUDGMENT The original petition is filed challenging Ext.P5 order issued by the respondent. The petitioner is a subscriber in MIG Housing Scheme at Vaduthala sponsored by the respondent. He purchased House No.14 in that scheme on instalment basis and took possession of the same in the year 1983. He has been remitting the amount in different instalments and according to the petitioner, all the instalments have been paid by him and actually there is an excess payment of Rs.1,905.56. It is also averred in the original petition that he has got original records which will prove that there is no further liability on his part. As per Ext.P5, the respondent directed the petitioner to clear the sum of Rs.11,108/- + Rs.11,664/- on or before 31.1.2001, failing which they proposed to proceed with eviction without any further notice. Out of the total amount, Rs.11,664/- represents penalty of additional construction made without prior sanction from the authority. The petitioner has got a case that he had obtained prior sanction as per Ext.P6, which was not considered by the authority. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Jimmy George, OP 4627/2001 -2- learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. 3. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit disputing the facts stated in the original petition. Detailed calculations are also given in the counter affidavit. 4. Since the petitioner asserts that he will be able to satisfy the respondent that no further amount is due and that the construction was made with prior sanction, I feel that the petitioner should be given an opportunity by the respondent to prove his contentions. To enable the petitioner to do so, I direct the respondent to issue a proper notice to the petitioner showing the items of amounts claimed. The petitioner is also allowed to submit a detailed representation in the matter. The respondent will hear the petitioner and the petitioner will be free to produce documents or evidence in support of his contentions. 5. Hence, Ext.P5 will not be given effect to, to enable the respondent to reconsider the matter in accordance with law. The original title deed is yet to be released to the petitioner. Only after determination of the dispute that is raised in the original petition alone, the same can be done OP 4627/2001 -3- by the respondent. Therefore, the respondent will consider the matter and pass final orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The original petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/ OP 4627/2001 -4- T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P. No.4627 of 2001-A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT 25th January, 2008.