In this writ petition challenging an order for pathway restoration, the Court disposed of the matter by directing the District Collector and Panchayat to issue notice and hear the parties before taking action.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
TUESDAY, THE 13TH MARCH 2007 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1928
WP(C).No. 1281 of 2007(C) -------------------------
PETITIONER:
THULASIDHARAN P.C., S/O.T.P. KRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 45 YEARS, KRISHNALAYAM, RESIDING AT NARATH, KANNUR DIST.
BY ADV. SRI.PROMY KAPRAKKATT SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH SMT.P.K.BEENA
RESPONDENTS: -----------------
*ADDL. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR. (IMPLEADED SUO MOTU AS ADDL. 4TH RESPONDENT AS PER JUDGMENT DT. 13.03.2007) BY ADV. SRI.B.RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI SMT.S.AMBIKA DEVI SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN SRI.P.K.MAHASH SRI.R.JYOTHIKRISHNAN SRI.C.KRISHNAN(KANNUR) SRI.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR SMT.K.K.CHANDRALEKHA SRI.SUDHEESH THAROL
ADDL.R4 BY ADV. SMT. T.B. RAMANI, GOVT. PLEADER.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/03/2007,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.
W.P.(C) No. 1281 OF 2007
Dated this the 13th day of March, 2007
JUDGMENT
The District Collector, Kannur is impleaded suo motu as additional 4th respondent in the Writ Petition. Registry will carry out corrections in the cause title. Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the additional 4th respondent.
2
WPC No.1281/2007
Ext.P6 submits that since the Civil Court has decided the issue in favour of the 3rd respondent, Ext.P6 is legally correct. Counsel for the petitioner does not agree with the above submission.
Learned counsel for the Panchayat submits that the Panchayat is not having any objections in hearing the petitioner also before any action is taken pursuant to Ext.P6. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that this Court need not go into the merits of the matter. The Writ Petition will stand disposed of directing the additional 4th respondent to issue notice to the petitioner and also to the 3rd respondent and hear them before any action is taken pursuant to Ext.P6 for restoring the pathway/Thodu which is the subject matter of Ext.P6. Similarly, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent-Panchayat also to take actions pursuant to Ext.P4 for implementing Ext.P6 only after hearing the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. The petitioner and the 3rd respondent should be permitted both by the District Collector and by the Panchayat Secretary to produce whatever documents are available to substantiate their respective contentions.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE
btt
WPC No.1281/2007
3
THULASIDHARAN P.C.
LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT
NARATH GRAMA PANCHAYATH
M. SOBHANA
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
