Allowed

Chandran Nair v. the District Collector, Kollam & Others

Kerala HC6 Feb 2008WP(C)/2328/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition challenging an Additional District Magistrate's order under the Telegraph Act, the Court set aside the order due to lack of hearing and directed a fresh decision ensuring the petitioner's right to be heard.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of ADM quashed. Petitioner allowed to be heard afresh. Status quo maintained. ADM directed to decide within four months.

Chandran Nair Vs the District Collector, Kollam & Others — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 17TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 2328 of 2007(B)

¶5

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

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

-------------------CHANDRAN NAIR, S/O.LATE GOPALAN NAIR, KOYIKKATAZHIKATTU VEEDU, PINAKKAL KARAVALOOR PO, PUNALUR.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

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

¶11

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM.

¶12

2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, KSEB, PUNALUR.

¶13

3. JOHNY MAMACHAN, BINU BHAVAN, KARAVALOOR MURIYIL, KARAVALOOR P.O., PUNALUR.

¶14

4. ANNAMMA, W/O.JOHNY, DO. DO.

¶15

R2 BY SRI. C.K.KARUNAKARAN, SC, KSEB BY ADV. SRI.JOSE J.MATHEIKEL, SC, KSEB SRI.R.ARUN RAJ

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Kss

¶18

WPC.NO.2328/2007 B

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶21

EXT.P1:	COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED.
EXT.P2:	COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY.
EXT.P3:	COPY OF THE PLAINT DTD. 01/10/2005 IN O.S.NO.327 OF 2005 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, PUNALUR.
EXT.P4:	COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 01/09/2006 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P5:	COPY OF THE OBJECTION DTD. 19/09/2006 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P6:	COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 23/09/2006 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P7:	COPY OF THE WRITTEN COMPLAINT DTD. 20/10/2006 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P8:	COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 14/11/2006 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P9:	COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 22/11/2006.
EXT.P10:	COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD. 29/11/2006.
EXT.P11:	COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 25/11/2006 PASSED BY THE ADDL.DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, KOLLAM.
EXT.P12:	COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH.
EXT.P13:	COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH.
EXT.P14:	COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH.
2ND RESPO	NDENT'S EXHIBIT:
EXT.R2(A):	COPY OF ROUGH SKETCH

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

Kss

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

¶26

W.P(C).No.2328 OF 2007

¶27

¶28

Dated this the 6^th day of February, 2008

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P11 order of the Additional District Magistrate under Section 16 (1) of the Telegraph Act, 1885. Leaving aside all other contentions, the uncontroverted plea of the petitioner is that on the date of hearing, he could reach the ADM's office only very late since the bus in which he was traveling developed a mechanical failure. He states that he was not heard, though offered so.

¶31

By interim order dated 19.1.2007, it was directed that the wooden poles shall not be replaced with cement poles for the time being and the present line already drawn is to continue as such without any alteration. Therefore, the private respondents are enjoying the stay. It is also the requirement that the petitioner is also heard by the competent authority before finalising the issue.

¶32

WPC.2328/07

¶33

Page numbers

¶34

In the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned Ext.P11 is quashed and this writ petition is allowed directing that the ADM will take up the case and decide on the same afresh, after affording the petitioner sufficient opportunity of being heard. Status quo in relation to the line, as it now stands, shall be maintained till a final decision is rendered by the ADM as directed above. The ADM shall make an endeavour to dispose of the matter within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge

¶37

kkb.

Chandran Nair v. the District Collector, Kollam & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandran Nair v. the District Collector, Kollam & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ponnamma Vs C.Rajagopalan Nair

Benny Jose Vs Returning Officer,Paraspara Sahaya Co-Op

P.M.Mathew Vs Kadavoor Scb Ltd.

K. Divakaran Vs the State of Kerala

Govindan C.P. Vs the District Collector

P.Geetha Vs Kerala State Co.Op.Federation