This court dismissed the writ appeal as a sheer abuse of process due to the appellant's callousness and negligence, particularly for failing to raise the non-approval of layout contention in earlier proceedings.
The writ appeal dismissed at the admission stage with costs of Rupees ten thousand levied.
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 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1932
WA.No. 1762 of 2010 --------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.22338/2010 Dated 07/09/2010
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
MADAKATHARA GRAMAPANCHAYAT, ACKARAPPURAM, KURICHIKKARA P.O., THRISSUR-28, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
BY ADV. SRI.M.ANIL KUMAR
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ----------------------------JAYAPRAKASH.T., S/O.BHARATHI AMMA, AGED 44, KUTTIMUKKU, RAMAVARMAPURAM P.O., THRISSUR-680 631.
ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J.
W.A. No. 1762 of 2010
Dated this the 4th day of November, 2010
JUDGMENT
J.Chelameswar, C.J.
The respondent in W.P.(C) No.22338 of 2010 is the appellant herein, aggrieved by the judgment dated 7th September, 2010. The sole respondent herein preferred the above mentioned writ petition.
not choose to appear and contest the matter. The matter had to be
W.A.No.1762 of 2010
decided by this Court eventually ex parte against the appellant on the basis of the materials and averments placed before this Court by the writ petitioner/respondent herein. The respondent herein, it appears, submitted before this Court that his application for building permit is not being finalized on the ground that the predecessor in title of the respondent was required under law to relinquish the right, title and interest in a certain property belonging to him and in view of such nonrelinquishment the application of the respondent herein was not being considered. In the absence of any rebuttal to the said statement the Court accepted the said statement and directed the appellant herein to consider the application of the respondent herein without reference to the relinquishment referred to above.
W.A.No.1762 of 2010
petition is not made available to us. But, from the judgment under appeal it appears that the appellant only sought in the review petition for deletion of the second paragraph of the judgment wherein it was recorded that inspite of service of notice the Panchayat had not entered appearance. It does not appear from the materials on record that the appellant herein ever contended in the review petition that the application of the respondent herein cannot be considered in view of the fact that there was no approved lay-out in existence covering the area where the respondent proposes to construct the building. If only the appellant had taken such a ground and invited decision on the issue, it is known as to what would have been the result of the earlier writ petition, i.e. W.P.(C) No.15214 of 2010. The appellant accepted the finality of the said judgment and now rejected the application of the respondent by the order impugned in W.P.(C) No.22338 of 2010 on the ground that there was no approved lay-out for the area wherein the respondent seeks to
W.A.No.1762 of 2010
construct a building.
held as follows:
“So long as Ext.P2 judgment stands, the Panchayat cannot be heard to contend that unless the lay out of the internal roads, which provide access to the petitioner's land wherein he proposes to construct the building, is approved, a building permit cannot be issued. In such circumstances I am constrained to hold that Ext.P4 order passed by the Secretary of the respondent Grama Panchayat is one which is really in contempt of this Court.”
substance held that the appellant herein is barred by the doctrine of constructive res judicata or a principle akin to it from raising such a contention as it was not their case in the earlier round of litigation between the appellant and the respondent. We do not see any reason to interfere with the conclusion reached by the learned Judge. On the other hand, we are of the opinion that the appellant is guilty of callousness and negligence in the conduct of litigation and the present appeal is a sheer abuse of the
W.A.No.1762 of 2010
process of the Court. The writ appeal is therefore dismissed at the admission stage with costs quantified at Rupees ten
thousand.
J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice
P.R.Ramachandra Menon,
Judge
vns
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal should be allowed considering the appellant's failure to raise an additional ground of non-approval of layout in the earlier litigation.
Whether the appellant is guilty of callousness and negligence leading to an abuse of the process of the Court.
Whether the order passed by the Panchayat is in contempt of the Court.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
MADAKATHARA GRAMAPANCHAYAT
JAYAPRAKASH.T.
J.CHELAMESWAR
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
