The court clarified that appeals against interim orders are often not maintainable and emphasized the necessity for timely resolutions in urgent matters.

JUDGMENT

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.

Heard finally with the consent of both the parties.

2. The present intra court appeal filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act , 1958 assails the order dated 30.5.2025 in I.A.No .1 of 2025 arising from W.P(C)No.19597 of 2025, whereby the learned Single Judge has rejected the application for vacating the stay/interim order dated 26.05.2025. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Court against the impugned order.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is the 5th respondent in the writ petition. It is a Residents Association of a housing area lying adjacent to a large apartment complex. The case of the appellant is that there was a ‘thodu’ starting from about 500 meters North of the appellant’s residential area, passing through the appellant’s area, going through the compound of 7th respondent and ending at a river lying in 7th respondent’s property on the South. The geographical nature of this area is a valley/low lying area (approximately 50 to 60 feet below the road level) near Seaport-Airport Road and situated on the South of Collectorate, Ernakulam.

4. The apartment was constructed by the 7th respondent after reclaiming about 25 acres of marshy land. That causes heavy flood in the appellant’s residential area during the rainy season. Being aggrieved, the appellant moved the District Collector in his capacity as the Chairman of the District Disaster Management Authority.

5. After a detailed site inspection by the officers as well as the Collector himself, the authority ordered to deepen and widen the ‘thodu’ passing through the 7th respondent’s compound. Respondents 1 to 3 herein claiming to be the owners of newly constructed apartments, challenged the same in the writ petition and the learned Single Judge stayed the Collector’s order ex parte. Thereafter the appellant filed an application to vacate the stay duly supported by detailed affidavit, the learned Single Judge without considering any of the objections, the petition to vacate the stay was dismissed and the interim order granted was extended.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Single Judge ought to have vacated the stay inasmuch as the same was passed by the Chairman of the District Disaster Management Authority, under devastating circumstances prevailing in a large residential area after personally visiting the site treating it to be an emergency and need of the hour. The learned Single Judge relying on Ext.P1 report of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 25.06.2012 held that prima facie there is no drainage through the property covered by Ext.P7 notice, therefore, no satisfactory or valid ground to vacate the interim order dated 26.05.2025 is made out and thereby rejected the application.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the situation in the year 2012 was different. However, after the construction of thousands of apartments near the appellant’s residential area, the circumstances have significantly changed. Last year, the entire residential area of the appellant was flooded, and with heavy rains expected again this year, a similar situation is likely to arise. Therefore, since the construction of the ‘thodu’ has already been completed up to about 90%, its completion cannot be halted at this stage. Consequently, the learned Single Judge ought to have vacated the interim relief.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 7th respondent vehemently opposed the aforesaid prayer and submitted that as per the records it is seen