Sheeba Durom v. K.A.Johnson

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/7TH ASWINA, 1937 WA.No. 1807 of 2015 () IN WP(C).3747/2015 --------------------------------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 3747/2015 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 25-06-2015 APPELLANT(S)/ADDL. RESPONDENT NO. 4:

--------------------------------------------------------------- SHEEBA DUROM, W/O. LATE GODWIN DUROM, CHULLIKKAT HOUSE, PATEL MARKET ROAD, THOPPUMPADY P.O., KOCHI - 682 005. BY ADV. SRI.S.GOPAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. K.A.JOHNSON, S/O. ALEXANDER, KONNOTH HOUSE, KOCHUPALLI ROAD, KOCHI - 682 005.

2. THE CORPORATION OF COCHIN, ERNAKULAM, COCHI - 682 011, REP. BY THE SECRETARY.

3. THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF COCHIN, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN - 682 011.

4. GILBERT DUROM, S/O. ANDREW DUROM, CHULLIKKATTU HOUSE, THOPPUMPADY, KOCHI - 682 005.

R1 BY ADVS. SRI.K.C.ELDHO SRI.JIJO THOMAS SRI.MALLENATHAN.M.

SRI.P.V.MATHEW SRI.ANIL R.NATH R2 & R3 BY ADVS. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI SRI.P.K.SOYUZ,SC,COCHIN CORPORATION SRI.K.R.VINOD THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DG

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & ANU SIVARAMAN, JJ.

------------------------------------------------------------------ W.A.No.1807 of 2015 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of September, 2015

J U D G M E N T

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.

1. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the contesting respondents.

2. The 1st respondent, writ petitioner instituted the writ petition alleging that the corporation authorities are not acting in accordance with law to ensure removal of a structure over a public drain. That was held by the husband of the appellant, who is now no more. It is stated that he was running a meat shop from there.

3. The learned single Judge after dilating on the different aspects of law and facts concluded that the structure is unauthorized and is liable to be removed. The writ petition was accordingly ordered.

4. The appellant who was the additional 4th respondent before the

W.A.No.1807/15 learned single Judge has filed this appeal challenging the aforesaid decision.

5. When the matter is taken up for consideration for admission, after pointing out the relevant aspects, the only issue that is sought to be pressed is that any right of the appellant independent of what has been decided by the learned single Judge may be left open. That is obviously the legal position. We clarify that if the appellant has any other legal right to relief in accordance with any other provisions of law, independent of what has been dealt with by the learned single Judge, the impugned judgment will not stand in its way. We wish to add that we have not indicated that she has any right of such nature either.

Subject to what is stated above, this writ appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN, JUDGE) //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE DG