Allowed

Madhava Kamath v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Jan 2009OP/16186/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought direction to the municipality to implement an earlier order for demolition. The single-bench judgment directed the municipality to execute the order within one month due to lack of satisfaction regarding reasons for delay.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent (Municipality) to take appropriate legal action to implement the Ext.P6 order for demolition within one month.

Madhava Kamath Vs State of Kerala — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2009 / 24TH POUSHA 1930

¶5

OP.No. 16186 of 2002(B)

PETITIONER(S):

SRI.MADHAVA KAMATH, S/O.GOPALA KAMATH, AGED 58, VADAKKEVEKKOL MADOM, HOUSE NO.413, WARD NO.VII, VAIKOM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN

SMT.R.RANJANIE

RESPONDENTS:

STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT,GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

VAIKOM MUNICIPALITY REP.BY ITS SECRETARY VAIKOM.

¶16

T.RAJAPPAN ACHARI, `ROHINI HOUSE', NO.411/VII, HOSPITAL ROAD, VAIKOM-686 141.(* DIED)

¶17

(*ADDL. R4 IS IMPLEADED)

¶18

SANTHAMMA, W/O. RAJAPPAN ACHARI,

¶19

'ROHINI HOUSE', No.411/VII, HOSPITAL ROAD, VAIKOM-686 141.

¶20

GOPALAKRISHNAN, S/o. T.RAJAPPAN ACHARI, 'ROHINI HOUSE', No.411/VII, HOSPITAL ROAD, VAIKOM-686 141.

¶21

(* ADDL. RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5 ARE IMPLEADED AS THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE DECEASED 3RD RESPONDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 2/1/09 IN I.A.No.1671/07)

¶22

ADV. SRI.K.REGHU KOTTAPPURAM FOR R3 SRI.GEORGE KARITHANAM VARGHESE FOR R2 SRI.JOSEPH A.VADAKKEL FOR R2 SRI.JOSE KURIAKOSE (VILANGATTIL) FOR R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA FOR R1

¶23

THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/01/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

O.P.No.16186/2002 2

¶25

APPENDIX

¶26

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:

¶27

EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.9.1997 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶28

EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.4.2000 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶29

EXT.P3: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶30

EXT.P4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.37822/2001 DT.11.1.2002.

¶31

EXT.P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.32705/2001 DT. 11.1.2002.

¶32

EXT.P6: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 5.2.2002.

¶33

EXT.P7: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 22.4.2002 ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶34

I.A.243/2009

¶35

EXT.P7: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 29.10.97 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶36

EXT.P8: COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶37

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:

¶38

EXT.R2(a): COPY OF THE ORDER VIDE GO(RT) 1693/2000/LSGD DTD. 22.4.2000.

¶39

EXT.R2(b): COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.5.2.2002 ISSUED TO 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶40

EXT.R2(c): COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 11.6.2002 FORWARDED TO 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶41

EXT.R3(1): COPY OF THE ORDER NO.VM-6-2481/2000 DATED 27.6.2002 RECALLING EXHIBIT P6 ORDER.

¶42

EXT.R3(2): COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 15.4.1997.

¶43

EXT.R3(3): COPY OOF THE PETITION DATED 28.4.97.

TRUE COPY

P.A. TO JUDGE

S.SIRI JAGAN, J

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.No.16186 of 2002

¶48

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14^th day of January, 2009

¶49

J U D G M E N T

¶50

By this original petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the 2^nd respondent to implement Ext.P6 order passed by the 2^nd respondent. By Ext.P6 order, the 3^rd respondent had been directed to demolish certain constructions unauthorisedly made by the 3^rd respondent. Although, legal heirs of the 3^rd respondent has been impleaded, they have not chosen to appear and contest the matter. From the affidavit filed by the Municipality also, I am not satisfied that there is any sufficient reason for non-implementation of Ext.P6.

¶51

In the above circumstances, if Ext.P6 is still in force, the 2^nd respondent shall take appropriate legal action pursuant thereto and take it to its logical conclusion, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶52

The original petition is disposed of as above.

¶53

S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

¶54

rhs

Madhava Kamath v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhava Kamath v. State of Kerala

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

S.Shamsudheen Vs Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram.

Jaimon James Vs Corporation of Cochin

Valiya Eri Padasekara Samithi Vs the Union of India and Others

Mohammed Yousef Vs the Union of India

P.Prakash Kumaran Vs Asst. Labour Officer

K.Prabhakaran Vs the Sales Tax Officer