Saturday, 02, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Smitha Padmanabhan vs The Corporation Of Cochin
2021 Latest Caselaw 7901 Ker

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 7901 Ker
Judgement Date : 8 March, 2021

Kerala High Court
Smitha Padmanabhan vs The Corporation Of Cochin on 8 March, 2021
                 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.7388 OF 2014(W)


PETITIONER:

                SMITHA PADMANABHAN, AGED 41 YEARS,
                W/O.VASU, VIJAYAKUMAR, RESIDING AT MANNUMURIYIL VEEDU,
                MADATHIKARAZHAMA PO, KOTTAMPPALLY MURI, OACHIRA VILLAGE,
                KARUNAGAPPALLY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT 690 526,
                REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER GEETHA.C.P, HER
                MOTHER , AGED 65 YEARS, W/O.LATE PADMANABHAN, RESIDING
                AT KOTTOORAM @ THOTTATHIL,NANGIARKULANGARA, HARIPPAD,
                ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT 690 513.

                BY ADVS.
                SRI.K.SHRIHARI RAO
                SMT.N.SHOBHA

RESPONDENT/S:

       1        THE CORPORATION OF COCHIN,
                REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOCHIN 682 011.

       2        THE SECRETARY
                COCHIN CORPORATION , KOCHI 682 011.

       3        THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER
                COCHIN CORPORATION , KOCHI 682 011.

       4        P.A.JINAS
                S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN, PROPRIETOR,M/S. GALAXY HOMES,
                SHARAFUL ISLAM UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL ROAD, KALOOR,
                KOCHIN 682 017.

                R1 BY SRI.E.D.GEORGE,SC,COCHIN CORPORATION
                R1, R4 BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU
                R1 BY ADV. SMT.C.R.SARADAMANI
                R1 BY ADV. SRI.E.D.GEORGESCCOCHIN CORPORATION
                R1-3 BY ADV. SHRI.K.JANARDHANA SHENOY, SC, KOCHI MUNICIPAL
                CORPORATION

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08.03.2021,
     THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No. 7388/2014              :2:




              Dated this the 8th day of March, 2021.

                            JUDGMENT

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following

reliefs:

1) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondents 1 to 3 to implement the direction issued by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram in Ext. P4 forthwith.

2) Issue appropriate direction to respondents 1 to 3 to see that the complaints made by the petitioner against the 4 th respondent regarding illegal construction may be complied with at the earliest.

2. The issue relates to the action initiated by the Cochin Corporation

against the 4th respondent namely P.A. Jinas, S/O. Abdul Rahiman,

Proprietor, M/s. Galaxy Homes. Anyhow, the subject issue was under

challenge before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions

constituted under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. The Tribunal

allowed the petition and directed the Corporation to take steps in

accordance with the procedure contemplated under Section 406 of the

Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 and take a decision after providing an

opportunity of hearing to all concerned.

3. According to the petitioner, the Corporation is reluctant to

implement Ext. P4 order passed by the Tribunal. This writ petition is

pending before this Court from the year 2014 onwards and at this

distance of time, I do not think anything survives for consideration as

is sought for in the writ petition.

In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of

directing the Corporation to take action, if any, pending based on

Ext.P4 order passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government

Institutions in Appeal No. 92 of 2013 dated 23.08.2013 at the earliest.

However, I make it clear that if the proceedings are completed in

contemplation of the directions issued by the Tribunal, the direction as

above would not be binding on the Corporation.

sd/-

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.

Rv

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 4/11/2011 BY THE PETITINER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22/5/2012 IN WPC NO.30464/2011 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

EXHIBIT P3 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE REPLY/LETTER DTED 18/1/2013 OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OF THE IST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23/8/2013 IN A NO. 92/2013 OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTI9ONS, IRUVANANTHAPURAM

EXHIBIT P5 EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE DATED 18/12/2013 OPF THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P6 EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE DATED 16/1/2014 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

/True Copy/

PS To Judge.

rv

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter