P.V. Thomas vs Secretary, Angamaly ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1105 Ker

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                         PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
 THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 7TH MAGHA, 1943
                 WP(C) NO. 40832 OF 2016
PETITIONERS:

         P.V. THOMAS
         PUTHUSSERRY HOUSE, NAYATHOD, ANGAMALY.
         BY ADVS.
         SMT.V.GEETHA POTTI
         SRI.V.N.SUBASH


RESPONDENTS:

    1    SECRETARY, ANGAMALY MUNICIPALITY
         ANGAMALY, PIN - 683 572.
    2    ANGAMALY MUNICIPALITY
         REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
         ANGAMALY-683 572.
    3    K.KUTTAPPAN
         PARAMBATHUKUDY HOUSE,
         NAYATHOD, ANGAMALY-683 572.
         BY ADVS.
         SRI. P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, ANGAMALY MUNICIPALITY
         SHRI.ANIL K. MOHAMMAD, SC, ANGAMALY MUNICIPALITY
         SMT.SHAMEENA SALAHUDHEEN
         SMT.SHAMEENA SALAHUDHEEN



     THIS WRIT PETITION       (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP   FOR
ADMISSION ON 27.01.2022,      THE COURT ON THE SAME    DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
    W.P(C).40832/2016
                                          2




                                 JUDGMENT

Dated this the 27th day of January, 2022

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for the

following reliefs:

"(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writs, direction or order calling for the records leading to Exhibit P4 and quash the same."

2. The subject issue relates to cutting the overhanging branch of

a tree standing dangerously from the property of the petitioner to the

property of the 3rd respondent namely one K. Kuttappan,

Parambathukudy house, Nayathod, Angamaly, within the limits of

Angamaly Municipality and the consequential notice issued by the

Municipality to the writ petitioner to cut and remove the branches

standing dangerously, to the property of the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent submitted

that already the subject disputes by and between the parties are settled

and the branch which was overhanging to the property of the 3 rd

respondent is already cut and removed by the writ petitioner. Therefore, W.P(C).40832/2016

the adjudication of the issues raised int he writ petition on its merit is not

required at all.

4. Therefore, after perusing the pleadings and documents and

after hearing learned standing counsel for the Municipality Sri. Anil K.

Mohammed, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent Smt. Shameena

Salahudheen, the writ petition is disposed of recording the submission

of learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, as above.

In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that

notice issued by the Municipality directing the writ petitioner to cut and

remove the branches, has become virtually inconsequential and

redundant.

Sd/-

Shaji P. Chaly, Judge sou.

W.P(C).40832/2016

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 40832/2016

PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF IST RESPONDENT DATED 22.7.2016.

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 1.8.2016 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TO THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO EXHIBIT P2 NOTICE.

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY IST RESPONDENT DATED 16.12.2016.