This writ appeal was dismissed. The court found no error in the Single Judge's order dismissing the petition challenging an eviction notice for road encroachment, noting petitioners failed to appear after adjournments. However, costs were reduced from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 1,000 each.
Costs reduced from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 1,000 each per appellant; Writ Appeal dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE THE AG.CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/21ST PHALGUNA, 1936
WA.No. 573 of 2015 () IN WP(C).350/2015
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 350/2015 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONERS:
BY ADVS.SRI.C.RAJENDRAN
SRI.K.R.RANJITH SMT.R.S.SREEVIDYA
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. C.R. SHYAMKUMAR
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ASHOK BHUSHAN , Ag. CJ, &
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.
Writ Appeal No. 573 of 2015 - A
Dated this the 12th day of March, 2015
JUDGMENT
Ashok Bhushan, Ag.CJ.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader.
This Writ Appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 30-1-2015 in W.P. (C ) No. 350/2015 . Petitioners have filed the Writ Petition praying to quash Ext. P4 notice by which the petitioners were informed that they have unauthorisedly put encroachment on the road purambokku. Petitioners have further prayed that respondents may direct not to take any streps under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and also not to evict the petitioners from their shops.
2
W.A. No. 573 of 2015
further noted that in the area near Holly Cross Hospital, Kottayam, there is a sharp curve on the western side of the road and the inside of this curve has been occupied by the petitioners and some other encroachers, hindering the minimum site distance for the motor drivers.
3
W.A. No. 573 of 2015
In view of the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge and the materials on record, we do not find any error in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Petitioners were not entitled for any of the reliefs as claimed in the Writ Petition. However, looking into the fact that, the petitioners were only petty shop owners, we reduce the amount of cost from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) each.
Subject to the above modification, this Writ Appeal is dismissed.
ASHOK BHUSHAN , Ag. CHIEF JUSTICE
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE
ani/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition against petitioners who failed to appear despite three adjournments.
Whether the cost imposed on the petitioners as petty shop owners should be reduced.
Whether the writ appeal to quash the eviction notice and cost ought to be allowed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Navas and Jalaludheen
The State of Kerala represented by Secretary to Public Works Department
The Assistant Engineer Public Works Department
The District Collector, Kollam
The Aadichanalloor Grama Panchayath
The Director Kottiyam Holly Cross Hospital
Ashok Bhushan
A.M. Shaфиqque
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
