This writ petition challenged an order under Section 406 of the Kerala Municipality Act which confirmed a provisional notice against the petitioner. The Court held that the order was issued in a printed form without addressing any of the petitioner's contentions and quashed it for not applying mind.
The order dated 5-6-2001 is quashed.
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 S.SIRI JAGAN
FRIDAY, THE 23RD OCTOBER 2009 / 1ST KARTHIKA 1931
OP.No. 4311 of 2002(L)
PETITIONER(S):
P.SREEDEVI KUNJAMMA, MANNAMPALLIL, PERINGALA, KAYAMKULAM.
BY ADV. SRI.B.GOPAKUMAR SMT.CHINCY GOPAKUMAR SMT.S.LAKSHMI
RESPONDENT(S):
ADV. SRI.R.RAYA SHENOY FOR R1
SRI.R.PRASANTH KUMAR FOR R1 SRI.R.SUDHIR SHENOI FOR R1
SMT.ANJU DIVAKARAN FOR R1
THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/10/2009, THE COURT, ON THE SAME DAY, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: O.P.NO. 4311/2002.
EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DT. 18-1-2002. EXT.P2 PLAINT IN O.S.NO. 117/2001 OF THE SUB COURT, MAVELIKKARA. EXT.P3 REPORT IN O.S. NO. 117/2001. EXT.P4 ORDER DT. 5-6-2001. EXT.P5 MEMO DT. 5-6-2001.
EXT.P6 OBJECTION DT. 11-7-2001.
EXT.P7 LAWYER NOTICE DT. 8-1-2002.
[TRUE COPY]
P.S TO JUDGE.
S. Siri Jagan, J.
The petitioner is the owner of a property in respect of which the 1st respondent-Municipality has initiated proceedings under Section 406 of the Kerala Municipality Act on the ground that without obtaining development permit from the Municipality, the petitioner has filled up a low lying land, thereby causing obstruction to free flow of water. According to the petitioner, this is a collusive proceedings at the instance of the 2nd respondent, who is a politician and inimical towards the petitioner. It is also stated therein that the 2nd respondent is a student of the petitioner. The petitioner was originally served with a provisional order under Section 406 to which the petitioner filed detailed objections. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with Ext. P1 order in a printed form confirming the provisional order. The petitioner is challenging Ext. P1 order.
O.P. No. 4311/2002
-: 2 :-
according to Municipality, the Municipality was perfectly justified in issuing Ext. P1 order.
The original petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an order confirming a provisional reclamation notice issued in a printed form without addressing the petitioner's specific objections violates the statutory requirement of considering objectio
Whether the impugned order passed by the Municipality without applying mind is liable to be quashed
1 provisions across 1 enactments
P. SREEDEVI KUNJAMMA
KAYAMKULAM MUNICIPALITY
S. SIRI JAGAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
