Sundari v. V.R.Raju, The Secretary, Corporation Of Cochin

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/8TH ASHADHA, 1937 Con.Case(C).No. 426 of 2015 (S) IN WP(C).32815/2014 ----------------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10.12.2014 IN WP(C) 32815/2014 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN W.P.(C) NO.32815 OF 2014: --------------------------------------------------------------- SUNDARI, AGED 58 YEARS, W/O.G.RAVINDRANATHA PAI, RESIDING AT VIII/1201 A, SOUTH CHERLAI, MATTANCHERRY VILLAGE, KOCHI TLAUK - 682 002.

BY ADVS.SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN SMT.R.RANJINI RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 IN WP(C) 32815 OF 2014: -------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. V.R.RAJU, S/O.NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITONER , AGED 55 YEARS, THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF COCHI, PARK AVENUE ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI PIN - 682 011.

2. GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI.K.B, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, CORPORATION OF KOCHI, PARK AVENUE ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI PIN - 682 011.

3. SHAMSUDIN A.A., S/O.NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, AGED 50 YEARS, ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CORPORATION OF KOCHI, REGIONAL OFFICE, FORT COCHI -1 R1-R3 BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI,SC,COCHIN CORPORATION R BY SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Con.Case(C).No. 426 of 2015 (S) : 2 :

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

ANNEXURE A1 :

PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 10.12.2014 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN THE W.P.(C).

ANNEXURE A2 :

PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.02.2015.

ANNEXURE A3 :

PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE UNAUTHORISED CONSTRUCTION DONE BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE.

rv

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

---------------------------------- Contempt Case (C) No. 426 of 2015 in W.P. (C) No. 32815 of 2014 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of June, 2015.

JUDGMENT

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the compromise entered into between the petitioner and the 5th respondent in the writ petition, the very writ petition has already been dismissed as withdrawn. She has further submitted that in the light of the subsequent developments, the Contempt Case also does not survive. Recording the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, which has not been contradicted by the learned counsel for the respondents, this Court closes the Contempt Case as having not survived for further consideration. sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.

rv

W.P.(C). No.

-2-