Remanded

C.K. Thankappan v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 May 2012WP(C)/6051/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging a Panchayat order cancelling a business licence and ordering closure. The High Court set aside the order for violating natural justice due to lack of notice, without prejudice to future action.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order (Ext.P14) is set aside. This decision is without prejudice to the Panchayat's right to issue notice and take appropriate action thereafter.

C.K. Thankappan Vs the State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MAY 2012/4TH JYAISHTA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 6051 of 2012 (F)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

C.K. THANKAPPAN, AGED 57 YEARS ANOOP ENGINEERING WORKS, KUDAMALOOR P.O, KOTTAYAM.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD SRI.SIBY CHENAPPADY SRI.C.JOSEPH JOHNY

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE STATE OF KERALA

¶11

REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY

¶12

GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶13

2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

¶14

KOTTAYAM, MINI CIVIL STATION, THIRUNAKKARA

¶15

KOTTAYAM 686 001.

¶16

3. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER

¶17

DISTRICT OFFICE

¶18

KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

¶19

ST.ANTONYS COMPLEX, NAGAMBADOM, KOTTAYAM 686 001.

¶20

4. THE AYAMANAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH

¶21

AYAMANAM P.O, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT 686 015

¶22

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶23

5. THE SECRETARY,

¶24

AYAMANAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, AYAMANAM P.O

¶25

KOTTAYAM DISTRICT 686 015.

¶26

6. JAISAMMA BABU

¶27

VELLOOPPARAMBIL HOUSE, KUDAMALOOR P.O

¶28

KOTTAYAM 686 017.

¶29

BY ADV. SRI.S.HARIKRISHNAN

¶30

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.MUHAMMED SHAFI BY SRI. M.AJAY, SC, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

¶31

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-05-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

WPC NO.6051/12

¶33

APPENDIX

¶34

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶35

EXHIBIT P1. THE TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE NO.119/2002-03 DATED 2.9.2002 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY AYAMANAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH.

¶36

EXHIBIT P2. THE TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE NO.A2/40 DATED 26.5.2011 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY AYAMANAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH.

¶37

EXHIBIT P3. THE TRUE COPY OF THE BILL DATED 6.2.2012.

¶38

EXHIBIT P4. THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.F/7802/03 DATED 11.12.2003 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶39

EXHIBIT P5. THE TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.775/2003 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, KOTTAYAM.

¶40

EXHIBIT P6. THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.1.2004 IN IA NO.3465/2003 IN OS NO.775/2003 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, KOTTAYAM.

¶41

EXHIBIT P7. THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 5.9.2005 IN OS NO.775/2003 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, KOTTAYAM.

¶42

EXHIBIT P8. THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.159/12 DATED 12.1.2012 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶43

EXHIBIT P9. THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.N 159/12/L.DIS.DATED 31.1.2012 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶44

EXHIBIT P10.THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.PCB/KTM/JSP/3/2011 DATED 2.12.2011 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶45

EXHIBIT P11.THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 26.12.2011 OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶46

EXHIBIT P12.THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.PCB/KTM/JSP/3/2011 DATED 3.2.2012.

¶47

EXHIBIT P13.THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATD 25.2.2012.

¶48

EXHIBIT P14.THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A2/703/12 DATED 2.3.2012.

¶49

EXHIBIT P15.THE TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR OF THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD ISSUED AS PER THE DIRECTION OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN O.P NO.18308/1997.

//True Copy//

PA to Judge

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 6051 OF 2012

¶54

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

¶55

Dated this the 25^th day of May, 2012

¶56

J U D G M E N T

¶57

The writ petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P14 order of the Panchayat by which a licence issued to him was cancelled and his engineering workshop was ordered to be closed down. The main grievance of the petitioner is that this order was passed without putting the petitioner on notice and without affording an opportunity of hearing.

¶58

I heard the learned counsel for the Panchayat. Though he attempted to sustain Ext.P14, he could not rebut the contention of the petitioner that this order was passed without notice. In such circumstances, Ext.P14 is violative of the principles of natural justice.

¶59

For that reason, Ext.P14 will stand set aside. However, this shall be without prejudice to the right of the Panchayat to issue notice to the petitioner, hear him and take appropriate action in the matter if it is so advised.

¶60

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶61

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶62

C.K. Thankappan v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.K. Thankappan v. the State of Kerala

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

B.Balakrishnan Vs the Palakkad Municipality

M/S. Kerala State Construction Corporation Vs State of Kerala

C.a.Ibrahim Vs the Mangalpady Grama Panchayath

A.N.Ramachandran Vs Chottanikkara Gramapanchayath

Abdul Russak Vs Pathanamthitta Municipality and Another

Mary Stella Bai Vs the Chief Conservator of Forests