Dismissed

Manoj v. Kodungallore Municipality

Kerala HC14 Sept 2007OP/4213/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court addressed a dispute over compound wall construction directions issued by the Kodungallur Municipality. The Court held that the petitioner has an effective remedy via the Tribunal under the relevant Act and granted leave to file an appeal before the Tribunal within six weeks. The Original Petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Leave granted to file an appeal before the Tribunal within six weeks; No costs.

Manoj Vs Kodungallore Municipality — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 14TH SEPTEMBER 2007 / 23RD BHADRA 1929

¶5

OP.No. 4213 of 1999(B)

¶6

----------------------

¶7

PETITIONERS:

¶8

-------------------

¶9

1) MANOJ, S/O.KAITHAKKAT PRABHAKARAN, LOKAMALLESWARAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR.

¶10

2) SAJITH, S/O.KAITHAKKAT PRABHAKARAN, LOKAMALLESWARAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR.

¶11

3) A.REGHUNATHAN, THAZHATHUVEETTIL, LOKAMALLESWARAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER

¶13

SMT.K.P.RENJINI

¶14

RESPONDENTS:

¶15

----------------------

¶16

1) KODUNGALLUR MUNICIPALITY, REP: BY ITS SECRETARY, KODUNGALLUR.

¶17

2) SECRETARY, KODUNGALLUR MUNICIPALITY, KODUNGALLUR.

¶18

BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE JACOB

¶19

THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/09/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

Order on CMP.No.7213 of 1999 in OP.No.4213 of 1999-B.

¶22

DISMISSED.

¶23

14..9..2007. Sd/- T.R.Ramachandran Nair, Judge.

¶24

Petitioners' Exhibits:-

¶25

P1: Copy of the receipt issued by the respondents evidencing payment of the permit fee dtd.17.3.1998.

¶26

P2: Copy of the plan submitted by the petitioners 1 & 2 dtd.17.3.1998.

¶27

P3: Copy of the plan submitted by petitioners 1 & 2 dtd.17.3.1998.

¶28

P4: Copy of the sketch submitted by the Taluk Surveyor dtd.21.6.1996.

¶29

P5: Copy of the notice issued by the 2^nd respondent dtd.21.4.1998.

¶30

P5(a): Copy of English Translation of Ext.P5 dtd.21.4.1998.

¶31

P6: Copy of the receipt evidencing remittance of sketch fee dtd.1.9.1998.

¶32

P6(a): Copy of the sketch dtd.1.9.1998.

¶33

P6(b): Copy of the mahazar dtd.1.9.1998.

¶34

P6(bb): Copy of the English Translation of Ext.P6(b) dtd.1.9.1998.

¶35

P7: Copy of the receipt evidencing payment of permit fee dtd.14.7.1998.

¶36

P7(a): Copy of the sketch dated 14.7.1998.

¶37

P8: Copy of notice issued by respondents to the petitioner dtd.18.8.1998.

¶38

P8(a): Copy of English Translation of Ext.P8 dated 18.8.1998.

¶39

P9: Copy of the sketch dated 1.9.1998.

¶40

P9(a): Copy of the Mahazar dated 1.9.1998.

¶41

P9(aa): Copy of English translation of Ext.P9(a) dtd.1.9.1998.

¶42

P10: Copy of the representation submitted by the 3^rd petitioner to the Municipal Engineer dtd.9.9.1998.

¶43

-: 2 :-

¶44

P10(a):Copy of English translation of Ext.P10, dtd.9.9.1998.

¶45

P11: Copy of the notice of the Municipality and true English translation dated 29.7.1999.

¶46

P12: Copy of the reply submitted by petitioners 1 and 2 before the 2^nd respondent dated 31.7.1999.

¶47

P13: Copy of the notice issued by the 2^nd respondent to the petitioners and its English translation, dtd.1.9.1999.

¶48

P14: Copy of the reply submitted by the petitioners to the 2^nd respondent dated 18.9.1999.

¶49

P15: Copy of the sanction order issued to the 3^rd petitioner by the 2^nd respondent and its English translation, dtd.24.9.1999.

¶50

P16: Copy of the reply submitted by the 3^rd petitioner to the 2^nd respondent dated nil.

¶51

Respondents' Exhibits:-

¶52

R2(a): Copy of the notice dtd.1.9.1999 communicated to the petitioners 1 and 2 by the 2^nd respondent.

¶53

English translation of Ext.R2(a).

¶54

R2(b): Copy of the communication dtd.24.9.1999 granting permission to the 3^rd petitioner.

¶55

English translation of Ext.R2(b).

( true copy )

P.S. TO JUDGE.

Kvs/-

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.

¶60

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = O.P.No. 4213 of 1999-B.

¶61

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶62

Dated this the 14^th day of September, 2007.

¶63

J U D G M E N T

¶64

The dispute in this case relates to the construction of a compound wall. The respondent Municipality has issued certain directions regarding the manner in which the compound wall has to be constructed. The petitioner has got an effective remedy to approach the competent Tribunal constituted under the Act to challenge the same. Learned counsel for the petitioners sought leave to move the Tribunal. If the petitioner files an appeal within six weeks from today before the Tribunal, the same shall be entertained and considered on merits in accordance with law.

¶65

The Original Petition is disposed of as above. No costs.

¶66

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.

¶67

Kvs/-

Manoj v. Kodungallore Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj v. Kodungallore Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mareena Pinto Vs State of Kerala

C.P.Raghavan Vs Assistant Executive Engineer

Attakoya Pallikandy Vs Election Commission of India,N.Delhi

Thomas Mathew Vs Sharmila Mary Joseph

The District Collector Vs Thomas Mathew

Thomas Mathew Vs the District Collector, Kottayam & Anr.