Anitha Babu vs Corporation Of Cochin
2021 Latest Caselaw 7894 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

     MONDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                      WP(C).No.31649 OF 2012(E)


PETITIONER:

               ANITHA BABU
               AGED 50 YEARS
               W/O.P.N.BABU, PANATHARA HOUSE, KOTHAVARA P.O., VAIKOM
               TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

               BY ADV. SMT.A.SREEKALA

RESPONDENTS:

      1        CORPORATION OF COCHIN
               REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MAIN OFFICE, ERNAKULAM-
               682011.

      2        THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER
               THE CORPORATION OF COCHIN, MAIN OFFICE,
               ERNAKULAM-682011.

      3        MAJO JOSEPH
               S/O.JOSEPH P.K., PALLISSERY HOUSE, PONOTH ROAD,
               KALOOR, COCHIN-682017.

               R1-R2 BY ADV. SHRI.K.JANARDHANA SHENOY, STANDING
               COUNSEL, KOCHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD         ON
08.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.31649 OF 2012(E)                      2




                                      JUDGMENT

Dated this the 8th day of March, 2021

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

[a]. a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records which resulted in Exhibits P2 & P5 orders and quash the same to the extent it does not consider the complaint of the petitioner in Exhibit P1 petition.

[b]. Issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondents 1 and 2 to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P1 petiton filed by the petitioner after giving an opportunity of being heard.

(c) to grant any other relief that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the nature and circumstances of the case and

(d) allow this writ petition with costs..

2. The subject issue relates to the action initiated by the Corporation of

Kochi under section 406 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994. The paramount

contention advanced was that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the

petitioner before the final order was passed under section 406(3) of the Act,

1994.

3. In fact, when this matter was came up for admission on 14.1.2013,

urgent notice was ordered. Thereafter, the matter was not posted before the

Bench. Therefore, it cannot be believed that anything survives to be

considered in this matter at this distance of time. Moreover, a statutory remedy

is provided to the petitioner as per the provisions of the Act, 1994 to prefer an

appeal to the Council/Tribunal. Therefore, I do not find any reason to grant the

relief at this distance of time.

Writ petition is dismissed accordingly.

Sd/-

                                                  SHAJI P.CHALY

SMV                                                    JUDGE


                            APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1           TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE
                     PETITIONER DATED 28/06/2010.

EXHIBIT P2           TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY ORDER DATED

10/02/2011 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTICE DATED 21/03/2011 ISSUED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 T4RUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER AND LEGIBLE COPY DATED 23/11/2011 PASSED UNDER SECTION 406(3) OF THE KERALA MUNICIPALITIES ACT.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16/03/2012 ISSUED TO THE BUILDING INSPECTOR TO IMPLEMENT EXHIBIT P5 ORDER.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 07/05/2012 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE PLANNING OFFICER OF 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE PROCEEDING SHEET OF THE FILE REGARDING EXHIBIT P1 COMPLAINT DATED 22/06/2012.