Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

T. ASUMA BEEVI, KAMBIKETTIL VEEDU versus CORPORATION OF KOLLAM

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


T. ASUMA BEEVI, KAMBIKETTIL VEEDU v. CORPORATION OF KOLLAM - WP(C) No. 34080 of 2006(F) [2007] RD-KL 2036 (25 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 34080 of 2006(F)

1. T. ASUMA BEEVI, KAMBIKETTIL VEEDU,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. CORPORATION OF KOLLAM,
... Respondent

2. SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF KOLLAM,

For Petitioner :SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

Dated :25/01/2007

O R D E R

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J.

W.P.(C)NO. 34080 of 2006 Dated this 25th day of January, 2007

JUDGMENT

This writ petition has been filed impugning Ext.P4 order of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions approving the order of the Corporation directing to demolish the temporary shed which is being retained by the petitioner even after the expiry of the period. Even though various grounds have been raised in the writ petition impugning Ext.P4, none of them appeal to me. It is in that situation the learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to Ext.P5 application for regularization submitted subsequently by the petitioner and requested that the Corporation be directed to dispose of Ext.P5 at the earliest. I notice that the main relief which is sought for in the writ petition is to quash Ext.P4. Having gone through Ext.P4, I do not find any infirmity about the same warranting corrections under this court's narrow jurisdiction for judicial review. In fact under Ext. P2, the Tribunal had directed the Corporation to WPC No.34080/2006 2 consider the question of regularising the construction. Thereafter, the Corporation considered the question, but regularisation cannot be granted. It was that subsequent order of the Corporation which was affirmed by the Tribunal under Ext.P4. Under these circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, since the petitioner has filed Ext.P5, the dismissal of this writ petition will not stand in the way of the Corporation disposing of Ext.P5 in accordance with law. Orders will be passed by the Corporation on Ext.P5 at their earliest and at any rate within one month from today. Till such time as orders are passed on Ext.P5, the status quo as obtaining today regarding the shed will be continued. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE Judge dpk


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.