Disposed

Pradeep Paul v. Secretary, Avinisseri Grama Panchayat

Kerala HC12 Mar 2008WP(C)/4528/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a Panchayat notice and resolution issuing a stop memo without hearing the petitioner held a hotel permit. The High Court quashed the order directing a fresh hearing considering bar licence grievances and potential building rule violations.

What did the court decide?

Notice and resolution quashed; Council directed to conduct a fresh hearing within one month considering bar licence implications and construction violations.

Pradeep Paul Vs Secretary, Avinisseri Grama… — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2008 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1929

¶4

WP(C).No. 4528 of 2008(L)

¶5

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

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

-------------------PRADEEP PAUL, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.K.A.KUNJIPALU, MANAGING DIRECTOR, HOTEL SALKARA RESIDENCY PVT. LTD., AVINISSERY, RESIDING AT KUNHIKURU HOUSE, VENDOOR DESOM, AMBALLUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH (PODUVAL) SMT.R.RAJITHA

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

-----------------------SECRETARY, AVINISSERI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, P.O.AVINISSERY.

¶11

*ADDL.R2 TO R6 ARE IMPLEADED:

¶12

R2. K.R.RAJEEV, CONVENOR, SALKARA HOTEL, RESIDENCY VIRUDHA POWRA SAMITHI, AVINISSERY P.O., ANAKALLU, TRICHUR – 13.

¶13

R3. K.K.GOPI, KARUTHEDATHU, AVINISSERY.

¶14

R4. K.S.BABU, KARUTHEDATHU, ...DO....

¶15

R5. P.J.JOMY, PERINCHERRY VEEDU,...DO....

¶16

R6. P.T.RAPPAI, PADIKKALA VEEDU, ..DO...

¶17

**(ADDL.R2 TO R6 ARE IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DTD. 27/02/2008 IN R.P.NO.245/08)*

¶18

BY ADV. SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS, SC SRI.LELLULAL T.G.THUNDATHIL SRI.M.R.DHANIL SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

Kss

¶21

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J.

¶22

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.4528 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 12^th March, 2008

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Under challenge is Ext.P3 notice issued by the Panchayat to the petitioner who had been issued with a building permit for construction of a hotel building. It is seen from Ext.P3 that Ext.P3 is issued pursuant to a resolution taken by the Panchayat on 29.1.2008. The resolution has been produced along with the counter affidavit filed by the Panchayat as Ext.R1(a). Ext.R1(a) will show that it was issued on the basis of a mass petition (Ext.R1) to which as many as 124 local people have subscribed their signatures, that the Panchayat decided to issue stop memo to the petitioner and to vacate the stop memo, only if the petitioner is ready to execute an undertaking in favour of the Panchayat to the effect that the building to be constructed by him on the basis of the permit will be used only for conducting hotel (and not for conducting any bar).

¶25

Heard Mr.Santhosh P.Poduval, counsel for the petitioner, Mr.T.R.Harikumar, counsel for the additional respondents 2 to 6 and Mr.K.B.Mohandas, counsel for the Panchayat.

¶26

One of the grounds on which Ext.P3 is impugned is that the resolution of the Panchayat Ext.R1(a) was taken by the Panchayat

¶27

W.P.C.No.4528/08 - 2 -

¶28

without hearing the petitioner. That ground certainly has appeal. The submission of Mr.Poduval that the Panchayat is not justified in insisting that an undertaking must be given to the Panchayat that the petitioner will not conduct any bar in the building is not justified since whether a bar licence should be issued to the petitioner, it is a matter to be decided by the statutory authorities in that regard. If any persons are having complaint against the grant of bar licence, it is open for them to raise the same before the Exercise Commissioner as and when the petitioner applies for bar licence. This submission of Mr.Poduval is also appealing. At the same time since the prominent ground is that Ext.P3 and the resolution Ext.R1(a) has been issued without hearing the petitioner, I quash Ext.P3 as well as Ext.R1(a) accepting that ground. I direct the Council of the Panchayat to hear the petitioner and a representative of additional respondents 2 to 6 and take a fresh decision regarding construction of the building by the petitioner on the basis of the building permit already granted. The Panchayat will also consider during such hearing the argument of the petitioner that the grievances of the complainants regarding the proposed bar can be voiced by them before the Excise Commissioner. Mr.Harikumar submits that the complainants have yet another

¶29

W.P.C.No.4528/08 - 3 -

¶30

grievance that the construction violates the KMBR. The Panchayat will consider this grievance also if necessary by conducting a local inspection after constituting a special committee for that purpose. The local inspection will be conducted with notice to the petitioner and additional respondents 2 to 6. The Panchayat will ensure all the above directions are complied with at the earliest and at any rate within one month of receiving copy of this judgment. The interim order will continue subject to the fresh decision which will be taken by the Panchayat.

¶31

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

¶32

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE

¶33

srd

Pradeep Paul v. Secretary, Avinisseri Grama Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Paul v. Secretary, Avinisseri Grama Panchayat

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

K.U.Eldose Vs the Asst. Exe. Engineer, N.H.

Renjith Kumar Vs Muvattupuzha Municipality & Others

Nobi Vs Thrissur Municipal Corporation & Others

Gopakumaran Vs Achuthankutty Menon @ K.P.a.Mani

Markazu Ssaquafathi Sunniyya Vs N.Jayanandan

V.C.Antony Vs Infra Housing (P) Ltd. & Others