Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

NIZAMUDHEEN MUSALIAR, BISMILLAH versus THE CORPORATION OF KOLLAM

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


NIZAMUDHEEN MUSALIAR, BISMILLAH v. THE CORPORATION OF KOLLAM - WP(C) No. 8871 of 2007(F) [2007] RD-KL 5569 (16 March 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 8871 of 2007(F)

1. NIZAMUDHEEN MUSALIAR, BISMILLAH,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE CORPORATION OF KOLLAM,
... Respondent

2. THE SECRETARY,

3. NAZEERA BEEVI, MUSALIAR MANZIL,

For Petitioner :SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

Dated :16/03/2007

O R D E R

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.

W.P.(C) No. 8871 OF 2007

Dated this the 16th day of March, 2007



JUDGMENT

Standing Counsel, Sri.M.K.Chandramohan Das takes notice on behalf of the Kollam Corporation. He submits that the 3rd respondent whose construction is now sought to be prohibited is none other than the direct sister of the petitioner and that the petitioner is only trying to settle a family score through the present writ petition. The above submission of Standing Counsel may be right; but the allegation is that even though as a co-owner, the 3rd respondent may be entitled to carry out constructions in the property, without obtaining permit from the local authority, she is now going ahead with the construction and that the Municipality is not taking any action. I do not propose to decide the case on its merits. Since Ext.P3 has been submitted before the Corporation, it is only appropriate that the Corporation takes up Ext.P3 immediately gives notice to the 3rd respondent, hear the petitioner and the 3rd respondent and take a decision at the earliest. Decision as directed above will be taken by the Corporation within two weeks of receiving a copy of this judgment. Construction, if any, conducted by the 3rd respondent already will be at WPC No.8871/2007 2 the 3rd respondent's risk and subject to the decision to be taken by the Municipality on the complaint of the petitioner.

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE

btt WPC No.8871/2007 3


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.