Justin Francis vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 4684 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

     TUESDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 20TH MAGHA,1942

                        WP(C).No.3283 OF 2021(I)


PETITIONER/S:

                JUSTIN FRANCIS,S/O. FRANCIS
                CHITTILAPPILLY HOUSE, CHITTILAPPILLY P.O.
                THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680551.

                BY ADVS.
                SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN
                K.A.ABHILASH
                SRI.N.R.SANGEETHARAJ
                SRI.VINOD S. PILLAI
                SMT.SREELAKSHMI R.
                MOHAMMED THAYIB N.M.

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         STATE OF KERALA
                REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE
                DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695
                001.

      2         THRISSUR CORPORATION
                MUNICIPAL OFFICE ROAD, THRISSUR - 683101, REPRESENTED
                BY ITS SECRETARY.

      3         THE SECRETARY
                THRISSUR CORPORATION, MUNICIPAL OFFICE ROAD, THRISSUR
                - 683101.

      4         THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER / CORPORATION ENGINEER
                THRISSUR CORPORATION, MUNICIPAL OFFICE ROAD, THRISSUR
                - 683101.


OTHER PRESENT:

                GP: SRI.A RAVIKRISHNAN
                SC: SRI.SANTHOSH P PODUVAL

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.3283 OF 2021(I)                  2

                                    JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P2 provisional

order threatening the petitioner with a demolition of a construction put of by him.

On receipt of Ext.P2 order, the petitioner had preferred Ext.P3 objections before

the 4th respondent, although the contention in the writ petition is essentially that

the 4th respondent, who issued Ext.P2 provisional order, does not have the

jurisdiction to issue the same.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned

Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation as also the learned Government

Pleader for the official respondents of the State.

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the

submissions made across the Bar, I deem it appropriate to dispose the writ petition

by directing the 3rd respondent Secretary to consider Ext.P3 objection preferred

by the petitioner to Ext.P2 provisional order and pass orders after hearing the

petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment. The order to be passed by the 3 rd respondent shall contain clear

reasons for the decision arrived at by the 3 rd respondent. I also make it clear that

till such time as orders are passed by the 3 rd respondent as directed and the order

communicated to the petitioner, coercive steps pursuant to Ext.P2 provisional

order shall not be taken as against the petitioner. The petitioner shall produce a

copy of the writ petition together with a copy of this judgment before the 3 rd

respondent for further action.

Sd/-

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE sd

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 14.02.2012.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF PROVISIONAL ORDER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 25.01.2021.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO EXHIBIT P2 BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 01.02.2021.