Disposed

Dr.Ambedkar Cultural Forum v. Corporation of Cochin

Kerala HC30 May 2012WP(C)/4319/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a charitable society, sought to use 23 cents of Corporation of Cochin land for a library and stage but was denied the right to construct a compound wall. The Court directed the Corporation to landscape and maintain the land within six months or call upon the petitioner to do so.

What did the court decide?

Directed Corporation to implement resolutions to landscape and maintain land within six months, failing which it must call upon petitioner to do the work.

Dr.Ambedkar Cultural Forum Vs Corporation of Cochin — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2012/9TH JYAISHTA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 4319 of 2009 (L)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

DR.AMBEDKAR CULTURAL FORUM, REG. NO. E.R. 1031/99, PANDIKKUDY, STATUE ROAD KOCHI, PIN 682 002, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.K.A.BALAN SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SRI.S.A.ANAND

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. CORPORATION OF COCHIN, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PARK AVENUE, ERNAKULAM PIN 682 011.

¶11

2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CORPORATION OF COCHIN, ZONAL OFFICE, FORT KOCHI PIN 682 001.

¶12

3. K.R. MANI, S/O. RAMANKUTTY, ODAMPILLY PARAMBU, CHULLICKAL, KOCHI PIN 682 005.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.C. M. SURESH BABU, SC,COCHIN CORPORATION BY ADV. SRI. ASOK M. CHERIAN BY ADV. SRI. PRAVEEN K. JOY BY ADV. SRI. S. RAMESH BABU, SC. COCHIN CORPORATION.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-05-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

DCS

¶16

WP(C).No. 4319 of 2009 (L)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :-

¶19

EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF DR. AMBEDKAR CULTURAL FORUM

¶20

EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. F.C. P 2-1816/2001 DATED 12.1.2005 OF THE IST RESPONDENT

¶21

EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE PETITIONER

¶22

EXHIBIT P4: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.01.2008 IN I.A. NO. 63/08 IN O.S. NO. 13/08 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, KOCHI

¶23

EXHIBIT P5: COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. F.C.P. 2/1816/01 DATED 23.01.2008 OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OF THE ZONAL OFFICE OF THE CORPORATION OF COCHIN

¶24

EXHIBIT P6: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.02.2008 IN W.P.(C) NO. 5503/2008 OF THIS HON'BLE

¶25

EXHIBIT P7: COPY OF THE RESOLUTION OF STANDING COMMITTEE ON TOWN PLANNING OF THE IST RESPONDENT AT ITS MEETING HELD ON 14.03.2008

¶26

EXHIBIT P8: COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO. 75 DATED 14.10.2008

¶27

EXHIBIT P9: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.11.2008 IN CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) NO. 1449/08 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT

¶28

EXHIBIT P10: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. MOC. 7-31754/07 DATED 28.11.2008 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶29

EXHIBIT P11: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. F.C.P. 2/1180/08 DATED 19.12.2008 OF THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER/PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE IST RESPONDENT

¶30

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :- NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

DCS

ANTONY DOMINIC,J

W.P.(C)No.4319 of 2009

¶36

Dated this the 30^th day of May, 2012

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

Petitioner is a charitable society. By Ext.P2, the proceedings of the first respondent 23 cents of land comprised in survey No.1109 of Thoppumpady Village owned by the corporation of Cochin was resolved to be entrusted to the petitioner, for the construction of a library and an open air stage. It was also resolved that the petitioner will be permitted to construct a compound wall as per the plan approved and will be allowed to maintain the property. However, subsequently, Ext.P5 stop memo was issued by the Corporation preventing the petitioner from proceeding with the construction of the compound wall and in the meantime, the petitioner had completed construction of the library building and the open air stage.

¶39

Ext.P5 stop memo was challenged before this Court in

¶40

Writ Petition No.5503/2008 and the writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P6 judgment directing that final orders in the matter will be passed after affording the petitioner an opportunity of

¶41

W.P.(C)No.4319 of 2009 2

¶42

hearing. Accordingly, parties were heard and Exts.P7 and P8 resolutions were taken by the Corporation.

¶43

Ext.P7 resolution reads as under:

¶44

AUSmhV¨¡ W¥\ÿr¤ SlLrU j]sj]¤¨OÐ òsU jYqynpORa Daoòfp]sOçfLeV. yUqƒe\ÿOofs WT¦y]¤ f}qOoLjNkWLqU W¥\ÿr¤ Ry£r]Rj J¤Õ]\ÿ]q]¨OÐ CT òsU, RkLfO^j°¥¨V DkWLqRÕaOU v]iU yUqƒ]¨RÕSaºfLeV. kq]yqvLy]W¥¨V W]uS¨LŸV yµLqSpLY|oLp vu] j]sj]¤¨OÐOºV IË]sOU DkSpLY]\ÿOvÐ]qOÐ vu] IÐj]sp]¤ NyLÒ]¨¤ SrLc]¤j]ÐOvaS¨LŸV kOf]pNaL¢SóL¡o¡ òLk]\ÿ]q]¨OÐ òsUvRq WLjàOoOWt]¤ SWL¦NW}ãV yæmOW¥ òLk]\ÿO msRÕaO¾] 2 o}ã¡ v}f]p]¤ jYqyn vu] j]¡Ú]\ÿO j¤SWºfLeV. jYqynpORa Daoòfp]sOç òsU j]poLjOyQfU AtÐV kæL¢ yo¡Õ]\ÿV mÌRÕŸ jYqynL DSh|LYòR£ So¤SjLŸ¾]¤ of]¤ ke]pOÐf]jV AUSmhV¨¡W¥\ÿr¤ SlLr¾]jV AjOof]

¶45

j¤WOÐO.

¶46

4. Ext.P8 resolution reads as under:

¶47

SWL¡ÕSrxR£ NkyVfOf òs¾]¢SosOç DaoòLvWLwvOU,

¶48

yUqƒeLvWLwvOU SWL¡ÕSrxj]¤ fRÐ j]sj]¡¾]R¨LºOU, Av]Ra qºV Aa] Dpq¾]¤ W¡mV vL¥ RWŸ] qLxVNa}p WsL yLUyVWLq]W Nkv¡¾j°¥¨V DkpO©oLp v]i¾]¤ sL£V yVSWÕV R\pVfV yUqƒ]¨OÐf]jOU f}qOoLj]\ÿO. Bpf]jV IU.I¤.I lSºL Cfq y¡¨L¡ lºOWStL WT¦y]¤ AjOof] SpLRa DkSpLY]¨OÐf]jV f}qOoLj]\ÿO.”

¶49

W.P.(C)No.4319 of 2009 3

¶50

According to the petitioner, the effect of the resolutions is that it is deprived of its right under Ext.P2 to construct the compound wall and to maintain the appurtenant land.

¶51

In my view, if as proposed in Ext.P8, the Corporation will get the land scaping done and maintain the land, the petitioner can have no objection. However, in spite of having passed the resolutions, apparently because of the interim order of status quo passed by this Court at the instance of the petitioner, the Corporation has not done anything in the matter. In such circumstances, if the Corporation still willing to implement Exts.P7 and P8 resolutions, since it will not be of any prejudice to the petitioner, the Corporation should be allowed to do so. Therefore, I direct that it will be open to the Corporation to implement its decision, which shall be done, at any rate, within six months of production of a copy of this judgment. It is also directed that in the event, the Corporation fails to do so, the Corporation shall immediately on the expiry of the aforesaid period call upon the petitioner to do the work as resolved in

¶52

W.P.(C)No.4319 of 2009 4

¶53

Exts.P7 and P8 resolutions and also entrust them the

¶54

maintenance work of the land as resolved in Ext.P3.

¶55

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶56

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶57

Dr.Ambedkar Cultural Forum v. Corporation of Cochin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Ambedkar Cultural Forum v. Corporation of Cochin

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

Saleem Vs District Collector, Idukki

Rama Varma Club Vs Corporation of Kochi

D.Radhakrishna Pillai Vs Pallikkal Grama Panchayat

S.Kannan Vs the Kerala State Pollution Control Board

Padma Kumari Vs Eloor Municipality

Thikkoottathil Raghavan Vs Kadalundi Grama Panchayat