Disposed

M.K.Govindan v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Aug 2012WP(C)/8437/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging construction in violation of town planning, the Court directed the Municipality to finalise the proceedings initiated under the Tribunal order and Section 406 of the Kerala Municipality Act within 6 weeks, notifying the parties.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd Respondent to conclude the enforcement proceedings under Section 406 within 6 weeks from today with notice to the parties.

M.K.Govindan Vs the State of Kerala — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012/15TH SRAVANA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 8437 of 2012 (D)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

M.K.GOVINDAN, AGED 59 YEARS S/O.KORAN, MEKATMOOLATH HOUSE, MANJUMMAL P.O. ELOOR VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH)

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE STATE OF KERALA

¶11

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT

¶12

GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶13

2. THE ELOOR MUNICIPALITY

¶14

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, UDYOGAMANDAL P.O. PIN 683501.

¶15

3. T.J.JOSEPH

¶16

THADATHIL PLAKIL HOUSE, MANJUMMAL P.O. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 683016.

¶17

4. SHERLY JOSEPH W/O.JOSEPH, THADATHIL PLAKIL HOUSE, MANJUMMAL P.O. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 683016.

¶18

R1 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.M.MOHAMMED SHAFI BY ADV. SRI.N.K.MOHANLAL BY ADV. SRI.P.B.PRADEEP

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-08-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

tss

¶21

W.P.(C) NO.8437/201`2

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶24

P1:- COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 7/2/2009.

¶25

P2:- COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ELOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 20/4/2010.

¶26

P3:- COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 23/6/2010 BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN APPEAL NO.510/2010.

¶27

P4:-COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 19/7/2011.

¶28

P5:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BY THE RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED 12/10/09.

¶29

P6:- COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN APPEAL NO.664/2011 DATED 16/12/2011 OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶30

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

¶31

R2(a):- COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL ORDER DTD. 15.5.2012.

¶32

R2(b):- COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 15.5.2012.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

tss

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

¶37

--------------------------------------------------

¶38

W.P.(C) NO.8437 OF 2012(D)

¶39

--------------------------------------------------

¶40

Dated this the 6^th day of August, 2012

¶41

J U D G M E N T

¶42

Petitioner complained of a stair case constructed by respondents 3 and 4, in violation of the approved plan. That allegation was denied by respondents 3 an 4. Finally, by Ext.P6 order passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institution, the Tribunal directed the Secretary of the Municipality to initiate fresh proceedings against respondents 3 and 4, complying with Section 406 of the Kerala Municipality Act.

¶43

In the counter affidavit filed by the Municipality they have stated that in compliance with Ext.P6 order of the Tribunal, the Municipality has already initiated action and issued Ext.R2(a), a provisional order under Section 406(1) of the Act. Counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 also submit that on receipt of Ext.R2(a), they have filed their reply in the matter. In view of the above, Counsel for the petitioner seeks a direction to the 2^nd respondent to finalise the proceedings pursuant to Exts.R2(a) in accordance with law and in compliance with Ext.P6 order of the Tribunal, on an expeditious

¶44

WPC.No. 8437/2012

¶45

:2 :

¶46

basis.

¶47

Municipality having issued Ext.R2(a) and as the affected parties have already filed their objections, it is necessary that the 2^nd respondent should finalise the proceedings with notice to the parties concerned. I direct the 2^nd respondent to conclude the aforesaid proceedings, in accordance with law, within 6 weeks from today.

¶48

Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

¶49

vi/

¶50

(ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE

¶51

WPC.No. 8437/2012

¶52

:3 :

M.K.Govindan v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.K.Govindan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Salim Vs Thomas P.J.

Maradu Municipality Vs Indus Towers Ltd.

K.K. Hassan Koya Vs Secretary, Kakkodi Grama Panchayath

K.S.Sanu Vs the Excise Inspector

P.v.Ramesan Vs the Secretary, Azhikode Grama Panchayath

Kollakandi Surendran Vs Special Grade Secretary