K.K. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR v. THE COCHIN CORPORATION

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.3561 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 4th March, 2008JUDGMENTThis Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner who is amember of J.M.Gardens Apartment Owners Association being aggrieved by erection of of truss work over the flat complex inter aliaseeking quashment of Ext.P6 order of the Tribunal for Local SelfGovernment Institutions declining the petitioner's request to restrain respondents 3 and 4 from carrying out the construction of truss work on the basis of the permit issued by the 1st respondent-Corporation.2. Detailed counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 3and 4 defending Ext.P6 order.3. I have heard the submissions of Mr.G.Sreekumar(Chelur),counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Narayana Raja, counsel for respondents3 and 4 and Smt.A.G.Anitha, Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent-Corporation.

Counsel addressed arguments on the basis of thepleadings and my attention was drawn to the various documents placed on record. Mr.Narayana Raja would submit that the interim order passed by this court stands in the way of the construction of the truss work which was taken up by the Association pursuant to an unanimous decision of the Association to which the petitioner was W.P.C.No.3561/08 - 2 -also a party. Mr.Sreekumar would submit that it is not correct to say that the petitioner was also a party to the decision. The question whether there was unanimity in the decision of the Association to construct truss work is now pending before the civil court. There are other issues also before the civil court. 4. Having considered the rival submissions addressed at the Bar, I am unable to agree with Mr.Narayana Raja who submits that the interim order dated 25.2.2008 results in hardship to the Association.

What has been ordered by this court on 25.2.2008 is that if the Corporation has issued any stop memo and the stop memo is in currency, respondents 3 and 4 will be bound to obey the same. Mr.Sreekumar placed before me certain materials received from his client pursuant to the applications made under the Right to Information Act. The materials will indicate that the Corporationinitiated proceedings and issued a stop memo on 25.1.2008. The last submission of Mr.Raja was that pursuant to the stop memo, explanations were submitted by respondents 3 and 4 and thependency of the Writ Petition stands in the way of the Corporation to finalise the proceedings. Since the Corporation has already initiated proceedings and respondents 3 and 4 have submitted their W.P.C.No.3561/08 - 3 -explanations to the stop memo issued by the Corporation, it is not necessary to examine the grounds of challenge raised against Ext.P6.I dispose of the Writ Petition directing the first respondent to complete the proceedings initiated under the stop memo cum notice dated 25.1.2008 addressed to the Secretary of the third respondent-Association and consider the explanation submitted by the thirdrespondent-Association to the stop memo after hearing arepresentative of the Association and the petitioner. Hearing will be conducted and final orders will be passed by the Corporation on the issue covered by the stop memo dated 25.1.2008 at the earliest and at any rate within two weeks of receiving a copy of this judgment.srdPIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE