Baby Thyparambil vs The Corporation Of Kochi
2025 Latest Caselaw 1079 Ker

Kerala High Court

Baby Thyparambil vs The Corporation Of Kochi on 16 July, 2025

                                                          2025:KER:52597

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON

    WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 25TH ASHADHA, 1947

                       WP(C) NO. 1703 OF 2018


PETITIONER:

    1     BABY THYPARAMBIL
          AGED 72 YEARS
          AGED 72, S/O. THOMAS, 43/891, THYPARAMBIL HOUSE,
          PRRA 42A, PALLICHAMBAYIL ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI 25.


          BY ADVS.
          SRI.K.R.VINOD
          SMT.M.S.LETHA



RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE CORPORATION OF KOCHI
          REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, PARK
          AVENUE ROAD, ERNAKULAM, 682 011.

    2     THE SECRETARY
          THE CORPORATION OF KOCHI, CORPORATION OFFICE, PARK
          AVENUE ROAD, ERNAKULAM, 682 011.

    3     THE HEALTH OFFICER
          COCHIN CORPORATION, CORPORATION OFFICE, PARK AVENUE
          ROAD, ERNAKULAM, 682 011.


          BY ADVS.
          SRI.JIBU P.THOMAS,SC,COCHIN CORPORATION
          SHRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN



     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                          2025:KER:52597

W.P.(C.) No.1703 of 2018
                                 -2-




                            JUDGMENT

Dated, this the 16th day of July, 2025

The petitioner has filed the captioned Writ Petition seeking

to challenge Ext.P4 notice dated 22.12.2017 issued by the

respondent Corporation by which the petitioner has been

directed to cut and remove certain trees in his property. This

Court notices that while admitting the Writ Petition, the

operation of Ext.P4 was not stayed.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation.

3. The proceedings at Ext.P4 has been issued on the

basis of a complaint filed by one Ratheesh Kumar as specifically

noticed therein. When that be so, the petitioner ought to have

impleaded the complainant before the Corporation also while

filing the captioned Writ Petition. However, the petitioner has not

chosen to implead the complainant before the Corporation in 2025:KER:52597

this Writ Petition. Therefore, the captioned Writ Petition cannot

be maintained, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In such circumstances, this Writ Petition will stand

dismissed.

Sd/-

HARISANKAR V. MENON

JUDGE SKP/16-07 2025:KER:52597

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1703/2018

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1. COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28.6.17 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2. COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3. COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 10.11.17 SERVED ON THE PETITIONER ON 16.11.17.

EXHIBIT P4. COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 22.12.17.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

TRUE COPY

P.A. TO JUDGE