Allowed

T.K.Jayan v. Chalakkudy Municipality

Kerala HC9 Jan 2009WP(C)/975/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition directing the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions to expeditiously consider a stay petition filed alongside an appeal against a demolition notice, keeping further proceedings in abeyance until the stay is decided.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Tribunal to consider the stay petition expeditiously and to keep further proceedings in abeyance.

T.K.Jayan Vs Chalakkudy Municipality — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2009 / 19TH POUSHA 1930

¶5

WP(C).No. 975 of 2009(N) ------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

¶8

T.K.JAYAN, S/O.KUMARAN AGED 45 LICENSEE BUS STAND CANTEEN, (NEELIMA HOTEL) CHALAKKUDY.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

¶12

CHALAKUDY MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶13

SECRETARY, CHALAKKUDY MUNICIPALITY, CHALAKUDY.

¶14

SRI.RAJESH,CHETTAKKA, CHALAKUDY.

¶15

THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS,TRIVANDRUM.

¶16

THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAK SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, TRIVANDRUM.

¶17

BY ADV. SRI. M.P. ASHOK KUMAR.

¶18

GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

S. Siri Jagan, J.

¶21

W. P (C) No. 975 of 2009

¶22

Dated this, the 9^th January, 2009.

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

Against Ext. P5 notice directing the petitioner to demolish a temporary shed within three days, the petitioner filed Ext. P7 appeal before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions along with Ext. P8 stay petition. Petitioner's grievance is that in Ext. P5 notice, the petitioner had been directed to demolish the building within three days and the Tribunal is not considering Ext. P8 stay petition. In the meanwhile, if the stay petition is not considered, the appeal itself would become infructuous, is the contention raised by the petitioner.

¶25

I have heard the learned standing counsel for respondents 1 and 2 also.

¶26

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the 4^th respondent-Tribunal to consider and pass orders on Ext. P8 as expeditiously as possible. Till orders are passed on the I.A, further proceedings pursuant to Ext. P5 notice shall be kept in abeyance. It would be open to the Tribunal to consider and pass orders in the appeal itself, if the Tribunal is so inclined.

¶27

Tds/

¶28

[True copy]

T.K.Jayan v. Chalakkudy Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.K.Jayan v. Chalakkudy Municipality

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

T.Prameela Vs Shri.M.Subair

Rajan Thambi Vs Karunakaran Nair & Anr.

M/S.Kaikkara Construction Company Vs P.J.Thomas

C.K.Rugmini Vs Shri.M.Subair

Sahira Basheer Vs the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.and Other

Shobhana Vs the Managing Director