Disposed

P.G.Joseph v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Jun 2015WP(C)/14588/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner alleged inaction against illegal construction by respondents 4 and 5. Court directed Respondents 2 and 3 to consider a representation after hearing within one month and ensured Panchayath prevents unauthorized construction in between.

What did the court decide?

Respondents 2 and 3 directed to consider representation Ext.P3 and pass appropriate orders after hearing within one month; Respondent 3 to prevent unauthorized construction.

P.G.Joseph Vs State of Kerala — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/19TH JYAISHTA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 14588 of 2015 (W)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

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

¶8

P.G.JOSEPH, AGED 69 YEARS, S/O.GEORGE, PERUMPALLY HOUSE, KUMBALANGHI, KOCHI-682 007.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.NOBLE MATHEW

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

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

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶13

2. KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, GANDHINAGAR, KOCHI-20.

¶14

3. KUMBALANGHI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KUMBALANGHI, KOCHI-682 007, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶15

4. ASSUMPTIA JOSEPH, THOLAT AGENCIES, 111/186(A), KUMBALANGHI, KOCHI-682 007.

¶16

**5. BAPPU JOSEPH, THOLAT AGENCIES, 111/186, KUMBALANGHI, KOCHI-682 007.(Deleted)

¶17

**(R5 IS DELETED AS PER ORDER DATED 09/06/2015 IN IA NO.7242/2015).*

¶18

R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN, R4 BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.), R4 BY ADV. SRI.S.SUJIN, BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SHYSON P.MANGUZHA & BY SRI. M.AJAY, SC, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

rvs.

¶21

WP(C).No. 14588 of 2015 (W)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶24

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

¶25

EXT. P1- TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 19.6.2002 IN O.P.NO.8669/2000.

¶26

EXT. P2- TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH EXHIBITING THE PLACES WHERE RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5 ARE CONSTRUCTING THE TEMPORARY SHED ILLEGALLY TO BE USED AS A GODOWN.

¶27

EXT. P3- TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 DATED 31.3.2015.

¶28

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶29

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

NIL.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

RVS.

A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

¶35

W.P.(C) No. 14588 of 2015

¶36

-------------------------------------------------Dated this the 9^th day of June, 2015

¶37

J U D G M E N T

¶38

Alleging inaction on the part of respondents 2 and 3 in

¶39

taking steps against the illegal construction by respondents 4 and 5, the petitioner has come up before this Court.

¶40

The petitioner alleges that respondents 4 and 5 are attempting to construct and complete a temporary building on the northern side of the petitioner's boundary wall without leaving any space for the purpose of stocking iron, steel and PVC rods as also for stocking glasses, in spite of the lawful directions of this Court in Ext.P1 judgment. The petitioner's grievance is that though respondents 4 and 5 are proceeding with the illegal construction and illegal actions without any lawful licence/consent from respondents 2 & 3, they are not taking any action against the illegal construction. Hence, this writ petition.

¶41

Arguments have been heard.

¶42

As it appears from record that the petitioner has

¶43

..2..

¶44

W.P.(C) No. 14588 of 2015

¶45

submitted Ext.P3 representation before respondents 2 and 3, this Court is of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of directing respondents 2 and 3 to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3 after affording the petitioner and the affected parties an opportunity of being heard within a time frame.

¶46

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 2 and 3 to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3 after affording the petitioner and the affected parties an opportunity of being heard within a period of the one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In the meanwhile, the respondent panchayath shall ensure that no unauthorized construction is being carried out by respondents 4 & 5.

¶47

To facilitate an early action, the petitioner shall be at liberty to produce copies of this judgment and the writ petition before respondents 2 & 3 at the earliest.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE

¶50

bka/-

P.G.Joseph v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.G.Joseph 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Khadi and Village Industries Commission Vs K.R.Peter

E.V Rajeevan Vs Transport Commissioner

Joy.T.v Vs District Executive Officer

Ramachandran Vs Madhukuttan

Bhafakhi Thangal Education Charitable Tr Vs State & Others

Malabar Cemets Ltd. Vs Industrial Tribunal, Palakkad