Disposed

K.Abdul Rahiman v. Executive Engineer & Others

Kerala HC25 May 2011WP(C)/10084/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition seeking writ of mandamus was disposed of without going into merits. The High Court directed the Executive Engineer to consider the petitioner's representation regarding unauthorised construction after giving all parties an opportunity of hearing, completing action within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P1 representation and pass orders after hearing all parties within two months.

K.Abdul Rahiman Vs Executive Engineer & Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2011 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 10084 of 2011(I)

PETITIONER:

K.ABDUL RAHIMAN, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMEDKUTTY, KARIMBANAKKAL HOUSE, THUPPANA P.O., KARIMBA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN

SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA

RESPONDENTS:

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

¶15

(N.H(R) ROAD SUB DIVISION), CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD-678 001.

¶16

HIJAS AHAMMED, PRESIDENT, YOUTH CONGRESS, S/O.SAIDALAVI, VAVURAYIL, VEEDU, THUPPANAD, KARIMBANA-678 597.

¶17

K.K.CHANDRAN, S/O.KOCHAYI, MANDALAM PRESIDENT, CONGRESS, KALLADIKODE, PALAKKAD-678 596.

¶18

GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN

¶19

ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN FOR R2

¶20

SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN FOR R2

¶21

SRI.K.T.THOMAS FOR R2 SRI.V.M.KURIAN FOR R3 SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN FOR R3

¶22

SRI.K.T.THOMAS FOR R3

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J

¶25

W.P.(C) No.10084 OF 2011

¶26

Dated this the 25^th day of May 2011

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

The petitioner has approached this Court with the following

¶29

prayers:

¶30

i) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction to the 1^st respondent to remove the unauthorised construction made by respondents 2 and 3 mentioned in Exts.P1 and P2 within the time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶31

ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction to the 1^st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P1 after hearing the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 and remove the unauthorised construction effected by them.

¶32

iii) To grant such other relief as this Hon'ble Court deem fit to grant in the interest of justice.

¶33

When the matter came for consideration before this Court on 30-03-2011, 2^nd and 3^rd respondents entered appearance and filed a counter affidavit (which is still to form part of the records). The grievance of the petitioner is that, an unauthorised construction is put up in front of his property and despite filing Ext.P1 representation before the 1^st respondent no proper steps have been taken, with intent to extend unlawful gains to the persons like 2^nd and 3^rd respondents. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the contentions raised from the part of 2^nd and 3^rd respondents is only that there are similar other sheds

¶34

W.P.(C) No.10084/2011

¶35

¶36

situated nearby, which according to the petitioner is not a ground for non-interference.

¶37

Heard the learned Govt. Pleader as well.

¶38

Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court does

¶39

not find it necessary to go into the merits of the case but to direct the 1^st respondent to consider Ext.P1 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, 2^nd and 3^rd respondents and such other persons concerned, if any. If at all any other unauthorised sheds have been constructed nearby, appropriate steps shall be taken in respect of the same as well, of course after giving proper notice to such persons. It is ordered accordingly. The proceedings shall be finalised as above as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 'two months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶40

The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the Writ Petition before the 1^st respondent for taking further steps.

¶41

Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶42

vdv

¶43

R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

K.Abdul Rahiman v. Executive Engineer & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Abdul Rahiman v. Executive Engineer & Others

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

K.S.F.E.Ltd Vs P.K.Velayudhan

Ajoy Vs the Rdo and Others

Pradeep P.V. Vs the District Collector.

Mathew Joseph Vs Sub Registrar

Sharmila Vs State

Sankar Vs State of Kerala