Allowed

P.K.Dinesan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Jul 2013WA/13/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ appeal challenging an order directing the appellant to vacate an unauthorized fish stall and pay damages. The court upheld the order to vacate but remanded the imposition of damages to ensure a hearing was afforded to the appellant first.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal allowed; Panchayat directed to treat notice as show cause notice and afford hearing before proceeding to quantify damages.

P.K.Dinesan Vs State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2013/14TH ASHADHA, 1935

¶7

WA.No. 13 of 2013 IN WP(C).19347/2012

¶8

¶9

APPELLANT/PETITIONER :

¶10

P.K.DINESAN

¶11

S/O.P.C.KUTTAPPAN, PUTHANPARAMBIL, MUNDAKAYAM P.O. MUNDAKAYAM VILLAGE, MUNDAKAYAM.

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE

¶13

SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE

¶14

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :

¶15

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-696001.

¶16

MUNDAKAYAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT (SPECIAL GRADE), REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MUNDAKAYAM P.O., PIN 272 490.

¶17

THE SECRETARY, MUNDAKAYAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT (SPECIAL GRADE), MUNDAKAYAM P.O. 272 490.

¶18

R1 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.P.I. DAVIS. R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.NIDHEESH

¶19

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

Manjula Chellur, C.J. & K.Vinod Chandran , J.

¶21

¶22

W.A. No. 13 OF 2013

¶23

- - - - Dated this the 5^th day of July, 2013

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Vinod Chandran , J.

¶26

The appellant herein was the petitioner before the learned Single Judge challenging Ext.P9 notice issued by the Mundakayam Grama Panchayat asking him to vacate the fish stall, he was occupying unauthorisedly, within 15 days and to pay the damages caused to the Panchayat by making structural alterations to the stall.

¶27

The contention of the appellant is that a fish stall

¶28

was allotted to him with licence for three months, however, without any facilities promised by the Panchayat. Subsequently he had been overstaying for the last 15 months on the above contention. Appellant claims that he should be allowed to continue in the premises as the other stall owners were allowed.

¶29

It is clear that the appellant has been overstaying in the premises without even paying the rent. In such circumstances, the Panchayat cannot be said to be at fault in directing him to vacate. The Panchayat is entitled to seek vacation of the premises and also impose and recover damages

¶30

W.A. No. 13 of 2013

¶31

-:2:-

¶32

for overstayal, since the Panchayat has lost rent by way of overstayal by the appellant.

¶33

However, with respect to the damages claimed in Ext.P9 notice, appellant's contention is that it has not been quantified and no notice was issued to him. This is not refuted by the Panchayat. In such circumstances, since no opportunity of hearing was granted to the appellant before damages were quantified, we direct the Panchayat to treat Ext.P9 as a show cause notice and hear the appellant within two weeks from today with prior notice to him and then proceed to pass an order in accordance with law. However, this does not mean that the appellant has any authority to stick on to the premises especially since we uphold the order to vacate.

¶34

The Writ Appeal is disposed of as above. No costs.

¶35

Manjula Chellur, Chief Justice.

¶36

K.Vinod Chandran, Judge.

¶37

ttb/05/07

¶38

W.A. No. 13 of 2013

¶39

-:3:-

P.K.Dinesan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.K.Dinesan v. 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

Abdul Rasheed Vs Si of Police

V.T.Lawrence Vs the Corporation of Cochin

Nazimudeen Lebba Vs Y.Sandhya

The State of Kerala Vs Jose

Raju Abraham M.L.A Vs Assistant Executive Engineer

Praveen S.U. & Others Vs Dr. Davendra Kumar Dhodawat & Another