Court disposed of writ petition by clarifying no order restrains work. Directed Municipality to complete work timely, address petitioner's representations via notices within one month.
Directs Municipality to complete work timely and decide on petitioner's representations via notice within one month.
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
MONDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2008 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1929
WP(C).No. 6049 of 2008(T)
-------------------------
PETITIONER:
------------
M.MURALEEDHARAN, S/O. KARTHIYAYINI AMMA, AGED 50 YEARS, MULLATH HOUSE, PUTHAMPILLY DESOM, GURUVAYOOR, CHAVAKKAD TALUK.
BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT
RESPONDENTS:
-------------
1. GURUVAYOOR MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, GURUVAYOOR, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. MULLATH ROAD COMMITTEE, UNDER THE GURUVAYOOR MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, GURUVAYOOR, THRISSUR.
3. GEETHA RAJAN, W/O. RAJAN, ODAT HOUSE, PUTHAMPILLY DESOM, GURUVAYOOR, CHAVAKKAD.
BY ADV.SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI, SC .
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE, J.
W.P.(c).No. 6049 OF 2008
JUDGMENT
I do not propose to go into the correctness of the allegations
levelled, the grounds raised or the merits of the contentions of the Municipality, for that matter the other two respondents in the writ petition. Sri.Jaju Babu submits that even though no interim order has been passed regarding the execution of the work of which the third respondent is a beneficiary, the Municipality is not very keen in seeing
that the contractor executes the agreement and does the work at the earliest. The issue between the petitioner and the Municipality is a different issue and the pendency of that issue before this court should not stand in the way of the work being executed at the earliest. I find merit in the above submission.
WPC.No.6049/08
2
Municipality submits that most of the disputes which have been raised by the petitioner will not come within the domain of the Municipalities Act and the powers which are available to the Municipality under that statute. There is some merit in the above submission also.
I dispose of the writ petition issuing the following directions and clarifications:
It is clarified that this court has not passed any orders restraining the execution of work in respect of which the petitioner has voiced his grievances. The first respondent Municipality will ensure that the contractor does the work at the earliest and complete the work in a time bound manner. There will be a direction to the Municipality to take up Exts.P1 and P2 representations submitted by the petitioner, issue notice to the petitioner and the third respondent and take a correct decision on the representations. The Municipality will comply with this direction also at the earliest and at any rate within one month of receiving a copy of this judgment.
PIUS.C.KURIAKOSE JUDGE
sv.
WPC.No.6049/08 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be disposed of by issuing directions regarding the execution of work and handling petitioner's representations.
M MURALEEDHARAN
GURUVAYOOR MUNICIPALITY
MULLATH ROAD COMMITTEE
GEETHA RAJAN
PIUS C KURIAKOSE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
