Disposed

Human Welfare Centre v. the Kalamassery Municipality

Kerala HC18 Jun 2015WP(C)/5215/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner alleged illegal encroachment on a public passage and parking area by the third respondent to hoist a political party flag. The Court directed the first respondent (municipality) to remove the encroachment with necessary police aid from the second respondent.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of directing the first respondent to implement the decision with the help of the second respondent once as required.

Human Welfare Centre Vs the Kalamassery Municipality — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/28TH JYAISHTA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 5215 of 2015 (B)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

HUMAN WELFARE CENTRE, KARIPPAI ROAD, KALAMASSERY(P.O), ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN -683 104, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPALITY OFFICE, KALAMASSERY (P.O)., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN- 683 104, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶11

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALAMASSERY POLICE STATION, KALAMASSERY (P.O), ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683 104.

¶12

3. V.A.ZAKKEER HUSSAIN,

¶13

SECRETARY, C.P.I(M) KALAMASSERY AREA COMMITTEE, AREA COMMITTEE OFFICE, B.T.R.BHAVAN, KALAMASSERY(P.O), ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN -683 104.

¶14

R1 BY SRI.M.K.ABOOBACKER R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.G.GOPAKUMAR R3 BY ADVS. SRI.P.M.MUJEEB REHIMAN SMT.M.M.JASMIN SMT.K.S.SUMITHA

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

sts

¶17

WP(C).No. 5215 of 2015 (B)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

EXHIBIT:P1 PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE FLAG STICK ERECTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING OF THE PETITIONER SOCIETY. EXHIBIT:P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P(C) NO.19852/2012,DATED 24.09.2012. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER, DATED 06.09.2014 ALONG WITH RECEIPT AND TRUE TRNSLATION IN ENGLISH.

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

¶27

W.P.(C) No. 5215 of 2015

¶28

Dated this the 18^th day of June, 2015.

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

Alleging that the respondents 1 and 2 have not removed the alleged encroachment on the passage in front of the petitioner's building by the third respondent in spite of Ext.P3 representation, the petitioner has come up before this Court.

¶31

The petitioner alleges that the third respondent and his supporters have illegally encroached the passage and parking area in front of the building and erected a metalic flag mast and hoisted the flag of their political party. They used to gather around the flag mast and shout slogans. Earlier, this Court by Ext.P2 judgment, has directed the first respondent to take effective measures to remove the encroachment in the public road and to ensure that other similar encroachments are not made. On the basis of Ext.P2 judgment, even though the first respondent removed the encroachment, now again the third respondent committed the encroachment in violation of Ext.P2 judgment; it is alleged.

¶32

W.P.(C) No. 5215 of 2015

¶33

-2-

¶34

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶35

and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent municipality in the matter.

¶36

The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent municipality on instructions submitted that the obstructions were removed by the respondents. However, the third respondent is again installing the flag stick of the political parties. Though notice has been served on the third respondent, he has not turned up. Though the respondent municipality has tried to do the best to abate the nuisance, the third respondent is continuing the illegal action. which can be redressed only with the help of the second respondent.

¶37

In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to implement the decision with the help of the second respondent, who shall render necessary police aid immediately.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE

¶40

Scl.

Human Welfare Centre v. the Kalamassery Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Human Welfare Centre v. the Kalamassery Municipality

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

K.v.Varkey Vs Muvattupuzha Muncipality

Chairman,Islahiya Charitable Trust Vs State of Kerala

Glashan Ann George Vs State of Kerala

Mrs. Sujatha Sukumaran Vs M.P. Biju

St.Mary'S Nursery and L.P.School Vs State of Kerala

Noorjahan Vs Thodiyoor Grama Panchayath