High Court of KeralaWP(C)/6015/2015disposed of

Jude.V.Dsouza v. Corporation Of Kochi

2015-02-25Honourable Mr. Justice Dama Seshadri Naidu4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/6TH PHALGUNA, 1936 WP(C).No. 6015 of 2015 (B) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER:

JUDE.V.DSOUZA, S/P LATE M.F.DSOUZA, AGED 46 YEARS, HOUSE NO.XXVI/1646, MALIYEKKAL ROAD, THEVARA, KOCHI - 682 013.

BY ADV. SRI.B.JAYASURYA RESPONDENTS:

1. CORPORATION OF KOCHI REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, BOAT JETTY ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 011.

2. THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF KOCHI, BOAT JETTY ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 011.

3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, THEVARA, CORPORATION OF KOCHI, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 011.

BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SOYUZ THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

APPENDIX IN WPC 6015/2015 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXT. P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19.2.2015 SUBMITED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL.

/TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.6015 of 2015 B -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of February, 2015

JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself.

2. Briefly stated, the petitioner, who is a resident of Maliyekkal Road within the territorial limits of the respondent Corporation, has a grievance that the respondent Corporation has been taking hasty steps to raise the level of the road, which, according to the petitioner, is bound to lead to inundation of his house situated at a lower level. In this regard, the petitioner is said to have submitted Exhibit P1 representation to the second respondent, who is yet to consider it. Under those circumstances, complaining of

WPC 6015/15 delay on the part of the second respondent in considering Exhibit P1 representation, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel, this Court, without adverting to the merits of the matter, disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the second respondent to consider Exhibit P1 representation of the petitioner in accordance with law, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Dama Seshadri Naidu, Judge tkv