Kerala High Court
For Information Purpose Only vs Gracious Kuriakose on 19 March, 2021
IA/3/2021 IN WP(C) 29320/2019 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Present:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
Friday,the 19th day of March 2021/28th Phalguna, 1942
IA/3/2021 IN WP(C)/29320/2019(L)
1.
For information purpose only
PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS IN W.P.(C) NO. 29320/2019
GRACIOUS KURIAKOSE,AGED 62 YEARS
SENIOR ADVOCATE, S/O. KURIAKOSE RESIDING AT NAMBIAPARAMBIL
HOUSE, SHENOY ROAD, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
2. RAVI KUMAR,,AGED 67 YEARS
ADVOCATE, S/O. LATE KANAKADAS , RESIDING AT UDAYA NAGAR,
KALOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
3. P.P. AHAMMED (Died),
S/O. LATE PAKKAR, RESIDING AT MUNDETH HOUSE , HOUSE NO. SKRA 33,
VTH AVENUE, K.K. ROAD, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
4. JOHNSON.T. (Died),
S/O. LATE JOHN THOAMAS, RESIDING AT SHELTER VTH AVENUE, K.K.
ROAD, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
5. BASKARAN,,AGED 83 YEARS
S/O. LATE K. KRISHNAN, RESIDING AT CHAYA VTH AVENUE, K.K. ROAD,
K.K. ROD, KALOOR ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN W.P.(C) NO. 29320/2019
1. CORPORATION OF COCHIN
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, ERNAKULAM
682 011.
2. THE MAYOR,
CORPORATION OF COCHIN, CORPORATION OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, 682 011.
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE KAKKANADU ERNAKULAM, 682 030.
4. THE TAHSILDAR,
KANAYANNUR TALUK OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, PN-682011.
5. RAJENDRAN A.G
AGED 63, S/O. GOPALAN, AMMEPPADATH HOUSE, SRRA 119, SHENOY
ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI-682017.
6. JYOTHI THOMAS,
AGED 58, W/O. THOMAS JACOB, SRRA 25,SHENOY ROAD, KALOOR,
KOCHI-682017.
7. A.I. JOSEPH,
AGED 75, S/O. LATE ITTYARA, SRRA 96, SHENOY ROAD, KALOOR,
KOCHI-682017.
IA/3/2021 IN WP(C) 29320/2019 2/4
8. RAJAMMA SASI,
AGED 64, W/O. SASI, SRRA 118,SHENOY ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI-682017.
9. PHILOMINA GEORGE,
AGED 64, W/O. GEORGE LONAPPAN, SRRA 25,SHENOY ROAD, KALOOR,
KOCHI-682017.
10. THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALA
BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695010.
11.
For information purpose only
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PALLIMUKU, ERNAKULAM-682011.
12. THOMAS JACOB.M. MOTHI,
(ARCHITECH), AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, SRRA 25,, 'MOTHI', SHENOY ROAD,
KALOOR-682017.
Application praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith the
High Court be pleased to clarify and declare that implementation of the directions issued in
W.P.(C) No.29320 of 2019 in the matter of construction of culvert in Shenoy Cross Road,
including the opening of tender and execution of the culvert works and the work of raising of
the pipes laid down by the Kerala Water Authority at Kathrikadavu are not affected by the
election conduct rules issued by the Election Commission and further direct the respondents to
complete the works before 31-03-2021.
This application coming on for orders upon perusing the application and the affidavit
filed in support thereof, and upon hearing the arguments of M/S. LAL GEORGE &
SEBASTIAN VARGHESE, Advocates for the petitioners in IA/WP(C), STANDING
COUNSEL for respondents 1 & 2 in IA/WP(C), SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
respondents 3 & 4 in IA/WP(C), SRI.MANU ROY,Advocate for respondents 5 to 9 in
IA/WP(C) ,the court passed the following:-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
--------------------------------------------------
I.A.No.3 of 2021
in
W.P.(C) No.29320 of 2019
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of March, 2021
For information purpose only
ORDER
This writ petition was disposed of by this Court
by the judgment dated 11.12.2020, directing the
Corporation to complete the work mentioned therein not
later than February, 2021.
2. However, the petitioner has today moved this
application saying that the Corporation is refusing to
comply with the directions of this Court, citing the
"Model Code of Conduct" which has come into effect on
the orders of the Election Commission of India,
consequent to the ensuing elections.
3. The learned Standing Counsel for the
Corporation submitted that even though every endeavour
was made to complete the work as ordered by this
Court, the intervening "Model Code of Conduct" has
caused confusion as to whether the work, as ordered by
this Court, can be completed during the period when it
is in force.
W.P.(C) No.29320 of 2019
4. I am afraid that I cannot find favour with
the Corporation in even thinking that the "Model Code
of Conduct" can in any manner intervene with the
For information purpose only
orders of this Court.
5. Even going by the "Model Code of Conduct",
orders of Courts have to be implicitly complied with
and honoured; and therefore, I am certain that the
directions in the judgment must be acted upon by the
Corporation without any further delay.
In the afore circumstances, I order this IA and
direct the Corporation to complete the work as ordered
in the judgment de hors the fact that the "Model Code
of Conduct" has come into play.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
H/O
akv
JUDGE
/true copy/ Sd/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
