Stephen Sunnymon Peter Gomez vs The Corporation Of ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 6525 Ker

WP(C) NO. 32680 OF 2016             1



                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
   WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 18TH JYAISHTA, 1944
                          WP(C) NO. 32680 OF 2016
PETITIONER/S:

      1       STEPHEN SUNNYMON PETER GOMEZ
              S/O.LATE PETER GOMEZ, 53 YEARS, SHARON GARDENS,
              SGRA-221, KOTTAMUGAL, NALANCHIRA P.O.
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
              SMT.WILBY GOMEZ, D/O.THRESIA FERIANDEZ, AGED 71
              YEARS, SHARON GARDENS, SGRA-221, KOTTAMUGAL,
              NALANCHIRA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

      2       SHEEBA SUNNY GOMEZ
              W/O.STEPHEN SUNNYMON PETER GOMEZ AGED 50 YEARS,
              SHARON GARDENS, SGRA-221 KOTTAMUGAL, NALANCHIRA
              P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY
              HOLDER SMT.WILBY GOMEZ D/O.THRESIA FERIANDEZ, AGED
              71 YEARS, SHARON GARDENS, SGRA-221, KOTTAMUGAL,
              NALANCHIRA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

              BY ADVS.
              SRI.K.SIJU
              SRI.S.ABHILASH
              SMT.RENY ANTO



RESPONDENT/S:

      1       THE CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
              CORPORATION OFFICE, PALAYALM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
              695033 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

      2       THE KERALA STATE YOUTH WELFARE BOARD
              KUDAPPANAKUNNU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695043,
              REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY.

      3       HLL LIFE CARE LTD.HITES
              INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT DIVISION ADARSH,
              T.C.6/1718(1), VETTAMUKKU, THIRUMALA P.O.
              THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695006 REPRESENTED BY ITS
 WP(C) NO. 32680 OF 2016                  2


              MANAGING DIRECTOR.

              BY ADVS.
              SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.)
              SRI.P.K.MANOJ KUMAR, SC
              SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM
              SRI.E.K.MADHAVAN
              SMT.J.SURYA
              SMT.P.VIJAYAMMA



OTHER PRESENT:

              SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN, SR.GP




       THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   08.06.2022,          THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 32680 OF 2016               3




                        P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                  --------------------------------------------
                      W.P.(C.) No. 32680 of 2016
                     --------------------------------------
                 Dated this the 8th day of June, 2022


                                JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :

"i. To issue a writ of mandamus commanding the 1st respondent to strictly implement Ext.P3 stop memo and initiate proceedings under Rule 18 of Kerala Municipality Building Rules against the illegal construction of storage/sump tank in the property of the 2nd respondent within a time bound manner.

ii. To pass such other reliefs that this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case." [SIC]

2. The main prayer in the writ petition is to implement

Ext.P3 stop memo. In Ext.P3, the 1st respondent directed the

2nd respondent not to do any construction activities in the

area mentioned in Ext.P3. The grievance of the petitioners is

that no further action is taken after Ext.P3. It is also admitted

by the petitioners that the civil suit is filed by the petitioners

and that is filed for permanent prohibitory injunction against

the 2nd respondent and an interim injunction is also passed in

favour of the petitioners. But the grievance of the petitioners

is that no further proceedings is initiated after Ext.P3.

Hence, this writ petition is filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the

learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-Corporation

and also the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd and 3rd

respondents.

4. The counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that

no construction activity is carried out afterExt.P3 order. The

same is recorded. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that

no further action is taken after Ext.P3. If Ext.P3 became final

and the same is not modified or varied by the competent

authority, the 1st respondent is bound to proceed in

accordance to law after Ext.P3.

5. Therefore, this writ petition can be disposed of

recording the submission of the 3rd respondent that no

construction activity is carried out, after Ext.P3 and there can

be a direction to the 1st respondent to proceed in accordance

to law from the stage of Ext.P3, if there is no prohibitory

order or Ext.P3 is not varied or modified by a competent

authority.

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the

following directions :

1) The 1st respondent is directed to proceed with Ext.P3 in

accordance to law, if it is not varied or modified by the

competent authority or court.

2) The submission of the 3rd respondent that no

construction activity is carried out after issuance of

Ext.P3 is recorded.

SD/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE SKS

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32680/2016

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

P1 COPY OF TAX RECEIPT REGARDING THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY DT.24-9-2016 ISSUED FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICE, KUDAPPANAKUNNU.

P2 COPY OF BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED BY R1 TO R2 DT.7-11-2014.

P3 COPY OF STOP MEMO ISSUED BY R1 TO R2 DT/.27-10-2015.

P4                          COPY OF PLAINT IN OS 2240/2015.

P5                          COPY OF NOTICE COMMUNICATING THE ORDER OF

INJUNCTION FROM THE MUNSIFF COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN OS 2240/15 DT.24- 11-2015.