Dismissed

M. Shajahan v. Nedumangad Municipality

Kerala HC22 May 2012WP(C)/2979/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, President of a local Union, filed a writ petition against the Nedumangad Municipality and six individuals alleging inaction on a representation regarding pollution and lack of cleanliness in a market. The court found the dispute stemmed from personal rivalry and dismissed the petition, directing the petitioner to approach statutory authorities instead.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed, to move statutory authorities if aggrieved.

M. Shajahan Vs Nedumangad Municipality — Kerala HC (2012) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2012/1ST JYAISHTA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 2979 of 2012 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

M. SHAJAHAN, PRESIDENT, NEDUMANGAD MARKET SWATHANTHRA THOZHILAI UNION, NEDUMANGAD, TRIVANDRUM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. NEDUMANGAD MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NEDUMANGAD, TRIVANDRUM-695 541.

¶11

2. S. THARA,

¶12

MANCHA PERUMALA NATATHARIKALA VEEDU (THANIRA MANZIL),

¶13

NEDUMANGAD, TRIVANDRUM-695 541.

¶14

3. HASHIM,S/O. ABDUL KAREEM,

¶15

MANCHA NILLIPPARA PULINCHIYIL PARAYIL HOUSE,

¶16

NEDUMANGAD, TRIVANDRUM-695 541.

¶17

4. SABEER,S/O. ABDUL RASHEED,

¶18

RESIDING AT PARIYARAM MUKKOLA LAKSHAM VEEDU COLONY,

¶19

NEDUMANGAD, TRIVANDRUM-695 541.

¶20

5. NISSAR,S/O. ABDUL RAHMAN, VAJIKKODE VALLOOKKONAM,

¶21

NEDUMANGAD, TRIVANDRUM-695 541.

¶22

6. SAJIMON,

¶23

S/O ALIYAR KUNJU, MANAKKODE, KUNNUMPURATH HOUSE,

¶24

NEDUMANGAD, TRIVANDRUM-695 541.

¶25

R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶26

R2 TO R6 BY ADV. SRI.R.V.SREEJITH

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-05-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

sts

¶29

WP(C)NO.2979/2012

¶30

APPENDIX

¶31

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶32

P1 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND OTHER OF OFFICER BEARERS OF THE UNION DATED 23/12/2011.

¶33

P2 COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT WITH DATED 23/12/2011 SHOWING THE RECEIPT OF EXHIBIT P1.

¶34

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

¶35

R2(A) COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENTS 2 TO 6 BEFORE THE NEDUMANGAD MUNICIPALITY.

¶36

R2(B) COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE MUNICIPAL SECRETARY, ACKNOWLEDGING THE RECEIPT OF EXT.R2(A).

¶37

R2(C) COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENTS 2 TO 6 BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶38

R2(D) COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NEDUMANGAD.

¶39

R2(E) COPY OF THE WRITTEN COMPLAINT DATED 11/11/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS 3 TO 6 TO THE SUB INSPECTOR, NEDUMANGAD.

¶40

R2(F) COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT EVIDENCING THE SUBMISSION OF EXT.R2(E)

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO.JUDGE

sts

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 2979 OF 2012

¶46

===================

¶47

Dated this the 22^nd day of May, 2012

¶48

J U D G M E N T

¶49

The main grievance of the petitioner is that despite having made Ext.P1 representation, no action has been taken by the 1^st respondent. According to the petitioner, he is the President of a Union and that respondents 2 to 6 are not abiding by the general norms fixed by the majority of the workers to abate pollution and to maintain the cleanliness of a market. It is stated that complaining of the above, they made Ext.P1 representation to the 1^st respondent and that no action has been taken by him.

¶50

However, the counter affidavit filed by respondents 2 to 6 prima facie discloses that the writ petition has been filed only on account of the personal rivalry between two groups of people. It is also seen that on one occasion, the party respondents had to approach this Court and obtain orders for police protection. In such a situation, I do not think this Court will be justified to direct the 1^st respondent to act upon Ext.P1 and take action on that basis against the party respondents. If the

¶51

WPC.No.2979/12

¶52

:2 :

¶53

petitioner is aggrieved, it is upto them to move the statutory authorities.

¶54

Writ petition fails and is dismissed.

¶55

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶56

M. Shajahan v. Nedumangad Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Shajahan v. Nedumangad Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.P.Abdul Salam Vs the Guruvayoor Municipality

Abdul Kalam K.G. Vs Cochin Corporation, Rep. by Its Secretary

Shibu George Vs State of Kerala

K.J.Peter Vs Corporation of Cochin

Madathil Hussain Vs Areecode Grama Panchayath

Johny Joseph Vs State of Kerala