Disposed

St.Joseph Church v. the District Collector

Kerala HC17 Feb 2012WP(C)/3443/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed seeking direction to District Collector to decide pending application for church cemetery. Court directed 1st respondent to consider the matter within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to the 1st respondent to deal with the matter covered under Ext.P7 regarding approval for the concrete vault (cemetery) within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this jud

St.Joseph Church Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/28TH MAGHA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 3443 of 2012 (E)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

ST.JOSEPH CHURCH, KIZHATHADIYOOR, PALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICAR, FR. JOHN MATTOM, KIZHATHADIYOOR, PALA - 686 575.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER

¶9

SRI.FIROZ K.ROBIN SRI.ROY JOSEPH

¶10

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶11

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM - 686 001.

¶12

2. PALA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PALA - 686 575.

¶13

R1 BY SRI.M.MUHAMMED SHAH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER R2 BY SRI.V.M.KURIAN R2 BY SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

AMV

¶16

WP(C).No. 3443 of 2012 (E)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :

¶19

P1.	:	COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13.06.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
P2.	:	COPY OF THE CONSENT DATED 05.08.2011 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, KOTTAYAM.
P3.	:	COPY OF THE CONSENT DATED 08.08.2011 ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE, POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD.
P4.	:	COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.09.2011 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
P5.	:	COPY OF THE SITE PLAN APPROVED BY THE MUNICIPAL ENGINEER, PALA.
P6.	:	COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19.11.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
P7.	:	COPY OF THE COVERING LETER DATED 25.11.2011 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FORWARDING APPLICATION TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
P8.	:	COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 14.01.2012 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
P9.	:	COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 31.01.2012 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶20

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

AMV

C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.

¶25

W.P.(c) No. 3443 OF 2012-E

¶26

DATED THIS THE 17^th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2012

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

Limited relief sought for in this writ petition for a direction to the 1^st respondent to pass appropriate orders on an application submitted by the petitioner church, seeking permission for construction of a 'concrete vault' (cemetery). It is stated that the application has already been forwarded by the 2^nd respondent Municipality for approval of the 1^st respondent, through Ext.P7. Complaint of the petitioner is that the 1^st respondent is not taking any decision on the basis of Ext.P7, in spite of lapse of considerable time.

¶29

Heard, Government Pleader appearing on behalf of 1^st respondent and standing counsel appearing on behalf of 2^nd respondent Municipality. Learned Government Pleader on the basis of instructions submitted that, the matter is now pending consideration before the 1^st respondent and report on the matter has already been called for from the

¶30

W.P.(c) No.3443/2012 -2-

¶31

District Police Chief. It is further stated that on getting the report, the mater will be dealt with and appropriate

¶32

decision will be taken without any further delay.

¶33

Considering pendency of the matter before the 1^st respondent, I am of the view that ends of justice will be achieved if a direction is issued for an early disposal of the matter by the 1^st respondent.

¶34

Hence the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1^st respondent to deal with the matter covered under Ext.P7 with respect to approval for consideration of the 'concrete vault' (cemetery) by the petitioner church, at the earliest, at

¶35

any rate within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶36

Sd/- JUDGE.

¶37

C.K. ABDUL REHIM,

¶38

AMG

¶39

True copy

¶40

P.A to Judge

St.Joseph Church v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

St.Joseph Church v. the District Collector

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

M.George Abraham Vs Lincy Abraham

Laila Joseph Vs Mr.Reji P.Thomas

Jamaludheen V.P. Vs Marakkara Grama Panchayath

Vinil Varghese Vs the Pattuvam Grama Panchayath

V.P.Anilkumar Vs the Excise Commissioner

P.K.Viswanathan Vs Adat Grama Panchayath and Others