Kerala High Court
Kochi Municipal Corporation vs Nancy Xavier on 1 July, 2025
WA NO.1462/2025 1
2025:KER:47375
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2025 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1947
WA NO. 1462 OF 2025
ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 02.06.2025 IN WP(C)
NO.21311/2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4:
1 KOCHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
KOCHI REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 682011
2 THE SECRETARY,
KOCHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
KOCHI, PIN - 682011
3 THE MAYOR,
THE KOCHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KOCHI, PIN - 682011
BY ADV SRI.D.G.VIPIN
RESPONDENTS:PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS 1 & 5
1 NANCY XAVIER,
AGED 35 YEARS
W/O. LATE ANEESH MATHEW, KAKKIRIYIL HOUSE,
9/180, FORTKOCHI, VELI ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682001
2 KERALA SHIPPING AND INLAND NAVIGATION
CORPORATION (KSINC),
38/924-A, GANDHINAGAR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PIN - 682020
WA NO.1462/2025 2
2025:KER:47375
3 KOCHI WATER METRO LIMITED,
4TH FLOOR, JLN METRO STATION, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PIN - 682017
BY ADVS.
SRI.LEO LUKOSE, R1
SRI.VIPIN P.VARGHESE, R2
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.07.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA NO.1462/2025 3
2025:KER:47375
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 1st day of July, 2025
Syam Kumar V.M., J.
This appeal is filed by the Municipal Corporation of Kochi
challenging the interim order dated 02.06.2025 rendered by the
learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.21311 of 2024. Appellants are
respondents 2 to 4 respectively in the W.P.(C).
2. The Writ Petition was filed seeking the following reliefs:
i. "Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or
direction directing respondents 1 to 4 to construct a roof
structure and a shelter room/waiting room at the Fort Kochi Ro-
Ro jetty.
ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or
direction directing respondents 1 to 4 to restart the operation of
the passenger boat service from Fort Kochi Ro-Ro Jetty in Fort
Kochi - Vypeen route.
iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or
direction directing the 5th respondent to commence the
operation of the Fort Kochi Water Metro Service in Fort Kochi -
Vypin route.
iv. Issue such other appropriate writ order or direction that may be
deemed to be just and equitable in the facts and circumstances
of the case.
V. Issue such other appropriate order or direction dispensing with
the filing of English translation of the vernacular documents
produced along with the writ petition."
3. The learned Single Judge, after admitting the Writ Petition
2025:KER:47375
into file, issued an interim order on 02.06.2025, operative portion
whereof reads as follows :
"Accordingly, I pass the following interim direction:-
(i) The 3rd respondent is directed to file a statement,
furnishing the details of the statutory licenses that
has been issued to them to operate the RoRo
service. He shall also state the number of
passengers and vehicles who have used the Ro-Ro
services between the Fort Kochi and Vypin and vice-
versa during the last one year.
(ii) The 1st respondent shall file a statement
regarding the statutory licenses that are required for
the purpose of operating the Ro-Ro service.
(iii) The petitioner to implead the Coastal Regulation
Zone authority as an additional respondent, and
may file reply affidavit, if any, before the next posting
date.
(iv) The 3rd respondent is directed to erect a
temporary waiting shed at the Fort Kochi Ro-Ro
Jetty, to accommodate at least 50 commuters at a
given time, at their expenses, within one week from
today.
(v) The 5th respondent shall explore the possibility
of providing a temporary waiting shed at Fort Kochi
and Vypin/Water Metro Jetties, to enable the
general public to have a shelter atleast during the
monsoon season."
4. Appellants/respondents 2 to 4 have challenged the above
interim order inter alia, contending that to the extent it directs the 2nd
appellant to erect a temporary waiting shed at Fort Kochi Ro-Ro
Jetty to accommodate at least 50 commuters within a specified
period, is illegal and unsustainable.
2025:KER:47375
5. Heard Sri.D.G.Vipin Devaswomparambil Gopinathan,
Advocate for the appellants, Sri.Leo Lukose, Advocate, for the 1st
respondent and Sri.Vipin P.Varghese, Advocate for the 2 nd
respondent.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the
interim direction issued by the learned Single Judge to construct a
temporary waiting shed at the Ro-Ro jetty at Fort Kochi is
unsustainable in law and fit to be set aside for the reason that
construction of a temporary waiting shed is a matter which imposes
a monetary burden on the Municipal Corporation, and such
construction cannot be carried out without getting approval from
various statutory authorities. It is further contended that the place
where the temporary waiting shed has been directed to be
constructed is covered by the Art and Heritage Regulations and
CRZ notifications. The learned Single Judge ought not to have
issued directions to the 2nd appellant to erect such a temporary
waiting shed before ascertaining the norms to be followed by the
Municipal Corporation in the said respect. The number of
passengers using the Ro-Ro ferry service is very limited in number
2025:KER:47375
and there exists a passenger boat service nearby, to cater to the
needs of the daily commuters from Fort Kochi to Ernakulam. In
addition to the passenger boat service, a water metro service is
functional, and a terminal for the same has also been erected. It is
hence contended that the prayer in the W.P.(C) for providing a
waiting shed is unnecessary, devoid of merit and liable to be
rejected. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the
place where the temporary construction is now directed to be
carried out occupies a unique character and beauty, and hence, the
construction directed would detrimentally affect the aesthetic
appearance of the Ro-Ro boat jetty. The practical difficulty in
construction due to the slanting mode of the Ro-Ro jetty as it stands
now has also been pointed out. It is further contended that
providing amenities and infrastructure to the people is a policy
decision of the Corporation Council, and any decision which
involves a monetary burden to provide amenities to the general
public needs approval of the Corporation Council and the Finance
Standing Committee. The 1st respondent had failed to put forth any
reliable evidence to substantiate the purported inconvenience
2025:KER:47375
caused to her and other passengers due to the lack of a waiting
shed in the Ro-Ro jetty is also raised. The filing of the Writ Petition
is termed as an abuse of process of law and rendering of the interim
order by the learned Single Judge is termed an error which needs to
be rectified in this appeal.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st
respondent contended that the Writ Appeal is not maintainable
insofar as the same is filed against the interim order and that the
Writ Petition is presently pending consideration before the learned
Single Judge. All that has been directed by the learned Single
Judge in the interim order is to put up a temporary waiting shed, to
meet the compelling circumstances that have arisen due to the
heavy monsoon down paours and taking note of the fact that a large
number of daily commuters use the Ro - Ro ferry for their to and fro
commutation between Ernakulam and Fort Kochi. The learned
Single Judge has only directed the putting up of a temporary shelter
for the passengers and has not directed any permanent
construction in the premises of the jetty. It was meant to provide
temporary relief to the 1 st respondent and scores of other
2025:KER:47375
commuters using the Ro- Ro jetty during the present monsoon
season until a final decision is reached on the Writ Petition.
8. We have heard both sides in detail. It is noted that the
learned Single Judge had noted that hundreds of citizens use the
service daily from the Ro-Ro Jetty at Fort Kochi. In boat jetties
operated by statutory authorities, the general public is usually
provided the basic amenities, infrastructure, including waiting
sheds/roads. It is the duty of the Municipal Corporation, which runs
the Ro-Ro jetty, to provide the very elementary requirements to the
commuters who pay for the services, to wait for the ferry service in
reasonable comfort and without being exposed to the harsh weather
and vagaries of nature. The learned Judge had rendered the interim
relief, taking note of the suffering faced by the commuters, and the
legal obligation of the Municipal Corporation. The commuters who
pay for the services are entitled to commensurate facilities. Here the
1st respondent, who had availed of the services after payment,
cannot be denied the basic facilities associated with the
establishment. The learned Judge has correctly concluded that the
appellant Municipal Corporation cannot shirk away its statutory
2025:KER:47375
responsibility by not constructing a temporary waiting shed at Fort
Kochi Ro - Ro jetty to accommodate at least 50 commuters. No
legally sustainable contention has been put forth to challenge the
same.
9. Having heard both sides in detail, we find that there is no
reason to interfere with the interim order rendered by the learned
Single Judge. It shall be open to the appellants to raise all the
contentions now put forth in this appeal before the learned Single
Judge at the time of consideration of the W.P.(C). All questions are
left open.
The Writ Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
JUDGE
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M.
JUDGE
csl
