Dismissed

V.T.Lawrence v. the Corporation of Cochin

Kerala HC4 Jul 2013WA/648/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ petition and subsequent appeal wherein the petitioner sought mandatory injunction to retain name boards erected for a social reformer in Pyary junction. The court found no valid proceedings, resolution, or communication to substantiate the renaming within the XIth Division.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition and the Writ Appeal were dismissed.

V.T.Lawrence Vs the Corporation of Cochin — Property and Title | 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

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶5

THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2013/13TH ASHADHA, 1935

¶6

WA.No. 648 of 2013 IN WP(C).7702/2013

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER IN WP(C) 7702/2013 DATED 08-04-2013

¶8

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶9

V.T.LAWRENCE, AGED 48, S/O.THOMAS,

¶10

DIAMOND ENGINEERING COMPANY, PYARY JUNCTION, THOPPUMPADY, KOCHI - RESIDING AT VELIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PYARY JUNCTION, THOPPUMPADY, KOCHI - 682 005.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR (PANAMPALLI NAGAR) SRI.K.P.CHANDRASEKHAR

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶13

THE CORPORATION OF COCHIN, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF KOCHI, KOCHI-682 011.

¶14

THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF COCHIN,KOCHI-682 011.

¶15

C.M. PONNAPPAN, PRESIDENT, SNDP BRANCH NO.1393, THAREBHAGOM, KOCHI-6, SON OF C.S. MADHAVAN, RESIDING AT CHANAYIL HOUSE, THAREBHAGOM, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI-6.

¶16

SMT.CELINE PETER, THE COUNCILLOR, DIVISION NO.11, (THOPPUMPADI DIVISION), CORPORATION OFFICE, PARK AVENUE,

¶17

P.B. NO.1016, COCHIN-682 011.

¶18

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.RAAJESH S.SUBRAHMANIAN

¶19

R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JAYACHANDRAN R4 BY ADV. SRI. D.B. BINU

¶20

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-07-2013, ALONG WITH WPC. 7702/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

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

W.A. No. 648 OF 2013

and

W.P.(C) No. 7702 of 2013

¶26

- - - - Dated this the 4^th day of July, 2013

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

Manjula Chellur, C.J.

¶29

The petitioner, claiming to be a resident of Pyary

¶30

junction and doing business within Cochin Corporation, approaches this Court seeking the following reliefs:

¶31

“i. to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, directing th respondents to retain Exzts.P1, P2 and P3 Boards and not to remove them which has already been erected by virtue of the decision of the Council of the Cochin Corporation and sanctioning of the fund in file No.SYE 1-MO33/1289/12 of the respondents;

¶32

ii. to grant such other reliefs, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶33

According to the petitioner, Sri.V.S. Krishnan

¶34

Bhagavathar, a resident of Pyary junction was a social reformer who contributed to the upliftment of poor section of

¶35

W.A. No. 648 OF 2013 and W.P.(C) No. 7702 of 2013

¶36

-:2:-

¶37

the society. This year being the centenary year of his birth, the residents of Pyary junction approached the Councilor of XIth Division to rename the road leading from Pyary junction to western side as V.S. Krishnan Bhagavathar Road as a mark of respect to him. Pursuant to this, a resolution came to be passed on 29.12.2012 and even necessary funds came to be sanctioned. Thereafter name boards were erected as per Exts.P1, P2 and P3. According to the petitioner, at the instance of some persons raising objections, the respondent authorities are taking steps to remove such boards. Though the petitioner along with 111 persons approached the respondents to maintain the Boards, the respondents are taking steps to remove the boards, therefore, he has approached this Court.

¶38

There was an interim order of stay initially, later on it came to be vacated. The order vacating the stay came to be challenged in this appeal by the petitioner. The interim stay granted earlier came to be vacated by order dated 08.04.2013 on the ground that no decision was taken by the Corporation to alter

¶39

W.A. No. 648 OF 2013 and W.P.(C) No. 7702 of 2013

¶40

-:3:-

¶41

the name of the road to V.S. Krishnan Bhagavathar Road at any

¶42

point of time and they had never put up the boards shown at Exts.P1 to P3 photographs.

¶43

From the submissions of the Corporation, we understand that the very road towards the western side of Pyary junction comes within the XIth division and if at all any decision to change or rename a particular road, it has to be recommended by the Councilor of that particular Division within which the road exists. Thereafter the decision has to be taken first by the Town Planning Committee thereafter it has to be placed before the Council of the Corporation. According to the Corporation, no such proceedings ever took place so far as renaming the road as V.S. Krishnan Bhagavathar Road towards the western side of Pyary junction which comes within XIth Division of the Corporation. The Councilor, who got herself impleaded in the proceedings, categorically states that she had not taken such decision and there was no such resolution as referred to in the writ petition stating that there was sanctioning of 1,30,000/-, so₹

¶44

W.A. No. 648 OF 2013 and W.P.(C) No. 7702 of 2013

¶45

-:4:-

¶46

far as the renaming and erection of boards at XIth division towards western side of Pyary junction.

¶47

As a matter of fact, the entire confusion seems to be on account of including this western road from Pyary junction in the list of roads which have to be renamed or named as per the letter sent by the Councilor of the XIIth division of the Corporation which is at Ext.P11. As a matter of fact Ext.P11 seems to be part of document at Ext.P10. On perusal of these two documents what we notice is, one Mr.R.Thyagarajan, Chairman of Education-Sports Standing Committee as well as the Councilor of XIIth Division had included a road pertaining to XIth Division in this Ext.P11. Even otherwise, unless the Corporation comes out with the statement that there was such resolution to change the name of a particular road in XIth Division as V.S. Krishnan Bhagavathar Road, we cannot assume so. To substantiate the stand of the petitioner before us, no material is placed. Even otherwise, Ext.P14 referred to in the writ petition, an alleged letter from Mrs.Celine Peter, Councilor of XIth Division

¶48

W.A. No. 648 OF 2013 and W.P.(C) No. 7702 of 2013

¶49

-:5:-

¶50

surprisingly does not indicate to whom it is addressed and in what context it is addressed. However, there is categorical denial of such letter issued by the Councilor of XIth Division. Even if she had given such a letter, there has to be again a decision in accordance with the procedure contemplated first from the Town Planning Committee and then from the Councilor of the Corporation. In the absence of any such proceedings, based on either Exts.P10, P11 or P14, we do not find any substance in the claim of the petitioner.

¶51

First of all there is no material indicating that there was conscious decision by the Corporation to change the name of road in XIth Division to name it as V.S.Krishnan Bhagavathar Road, then again, there is a decision to remove the boards in the name of said person. However, Ext.P15 further clarifies the situation that sanctioning of 1,33,000/- pertains to XIIth₹ Division and not XIth Division. There seems to be some confusion on account of including this road at Ext.P11 in the

¶52

W.A. No. 648 OF 2013 and W.P.(C) No. 7702 of 2013

¶53

-:6:-

¶54

letter of Councilor of XIIth Division and even the letter of Councilor of XIIth Division was never approved by the Council.

¶55

In the above circumstances, we find no good ground to sustain the claim of the petitioner. Accordingly the Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the Writ Appeal is also dismissed.

¶56

Manjula Chellur, Chief Justice.

¶57

K.Vinod Chandran, Judge.

¶58

ttb/04/07

¶59

W.A. No. 648 OF 2013 and W.P.(C) No. 7702 of 2013

¶60

-:7:-

V.T.Lawrence v. the Corporation of Cochin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.T.Lawrence v. the 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

Bindu.C.v Vs the Manager

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs C.N.Sreedharan

G.Lakshmikutty Amma Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Rasheed Vs Si of Police

Nazimudeen Lebba Vs Y.Sandhya

The Rubber Board, Kottayam Vs a N Jayaprakash