Allowed

Mullan Sulaiman v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Jun 2015WP(C)/6392/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala quashed the Government's order rejecting the petitioner's appeal obtained without a hearing or prior notice, directing the first respondent to consider the appeal afresh and pass fresh orders after hearing all concerned parties within three months.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the Government order (Ext.P12). Directed the first respondent to consider and pass fresh orders on the appeal after hearing the petitioner and affected parties within three months.

Mullan Sulaiman Vs State of Kerala — Municipal and Town Planning | 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 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2015/2ND ASHADHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 6392 of 2015 (Y)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

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

¶8

MULLAN SULAIMAN, PALAPPATTA HOUSE, PULIYAKODU MELMURI, KUZHIMANNA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.K.SASIKUMAR SRI.S.ARAVIND SRI.R.ROHITH SRI.K.JANARDHANA SHENOY SRI.V.K.PRASAD

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

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

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT (DB), DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶13

2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, UPHILL P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 673 001.

¶14

3. KUZHIMANNA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KUZHIMANNA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 673 641.

¶15

4. K.P.ALAVIKKUTTY, S/O.KAMMAD, PENGATTUCHALIL HOUSE, AKKAPPRAMBA (P.O.), KUZHIMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-673 641.

¶16

5. KUNHIKANNAN,

¶17

ANAPPATTATHU SCHEDULED CASTE COLONY, AKKAPPRAMBU (P.O.), KUZHIMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-673 641.

¶18

R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.G.GOPAKUMAR R3 BY ADVS. SRI.BABU S. NAIR

¶19

SRI.K.RAKESH R4 BY ADV. SRI.P.VENUGOPAL R5 BY ADVS. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN SRI.JITHIN LUKOSE

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

msv/

¶22

WP(C).No. 6392 of 2015 (Y)

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶25

EXT.P1:A TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.3/2013 DATED 09.05.2013 OF KUZHIMANNA GRAMA PANCHAYAT.

¶26

EXT.P1(A):A TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P1.

¶27

EXT.P2:A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15.05.2013 FORWARDED BY THE SECRETARY KUZHIMANNA GRAMA PANCHAYAT TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR THROUGH THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER.

¶28

EXT.P2(A):A TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P2.

¶29

EXT.P3:A TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE DATED 19.06.2013 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH) MALAPPURAM.

¶30

EXT.P3(A):A TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P3.

¶31

EXT.P4:A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.09.2013 IN WP(C)NO.21692/2013 AND THE CONNECTED CASE.

¶32

EXT.P5:A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 04.11.2013 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT.

¶33

EXT.P5(A):A TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P5.

¶34

EXT.P6:A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 30.11.2013 FORWARDED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, MALAPPURAM TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM.

¶35

EXT.P6(A):A TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P6.

¶36

EXT.P7:A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 16.12.2013 FORWARDED BY THE SUB COLLECTOR, PERINTALMANNA TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM.

¶37

EXT.P7(A):A TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P7.

¶38

EXT.P8:A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 14.02.2014 FORWARDED BY THE REVENUE DIVISION OFFICER, TIRUR.

¶39

EXT.P8(A):A TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P8.

¶40

EXT.P9:A TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION DATED 22.11.2013 FURNISHED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KUZHIMANNA.

¶41

EXT.P9(A):A TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P9.

Msv/

-2-

-2-

WP(C).No. 6392 of 2015 (Y)

¶46

EXT.P10:A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.06.2014 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM.

¶47

EXT.P10(A):A TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P10.

¶48

EXT.P11:A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 28.06.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶49

EXT.P11(A):A TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P11.

¶50

EXT.P12:A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT LETTER DATED 16.01.2015 FORWARDED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶51

EXT.P12(A):A TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P12.

¶52

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Ms v/

A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

¶58

W.P.(C) No. 6392 of 2015

¶59

Dated this the 23^rd day of June, 2015.

¶60

JUDGMENT

¶61

The petitioner has come up before this Court alleging that

¶62

though he has submitted Ext.P11 appeal before the Government, even without issuing notice and affording an opportunity of being heard, Ext.P12 order has been passed.

¶63

The petitioner submitted an application for licence to open a private burial ground in his property in Sy.No.291/1 of Kuzhimanna Village in Malappuram District to be used by the members of his Muslim communion attached to Mazjith Mohammed Abdulla Sulamy and Sunni Education Centre. This application was resolved to be forwarded to the District Collector through the District Medical Officer by resolution dated 9.5.2013 of the third respondent panchayat. On receipt of the application, the District Medical Officer conducted the inspection of the property and found that it is at an unobjectionable place and issued his Ext.P3 No Objection

¶64

W.P.(C) No. 6392 of 2015

¶65

-2-

¶66

Certificate on 19.6.2013 and forwarded the whole documents to the District Collector. Subsequently, on the ground that the panchayat received some objections, the panchayat passed a resolution on 11.7.2013 to cancel the earlier resolution deciding to forward the application to the District Collector through the District Medical Officer. The petitioner therefore approached the second respondent District Collector and since he did not consider the same, he approached this court and obtained Ext.P4 judgment dated 5.9.2013 in W.P.(C) No.21692 of 2013 directing the District Collector to pass orders on the same. However, the second respondent without considering

¶67

the no objection certificate and another positive report forwarded by the Sub Collector, Perinthalmana recommending permission, rejected the application by Ext.P10 order relying on yet another report he brought through the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirur. The statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner by Ext.P11 to the Government is now rejected by Ext.P12 Government letter.

¶68

W.P.(C) No. 6392 of 2015

¶69

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶70

the learned Government Pleader, the Standing Counsel for the respondent panchayat and the counsel for the party respondent in the matter.

¶71

It appears from Ext.P12 that the same has passed without applying mind and without affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.

¶72

Therefore, Ext.P12 is quashed and the writ is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider and pass fresh orders on Ext.P11 appeal, after affording the petitioner and the affected parties. This shall be done within a period of three

¶73

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶74

Sd/A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

¶75

JUDGE

¶76

Scl.

Mullan Sulaiman v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mullan Sulaiman 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

Abhilash.v. Vs Kozhikode Corporation

St.Mary'S English Medium School Vs Central Board of Secondary Education

Subramanian Vs the Oorngattiri Grama Panchayath

The St.Joseph'S Hospital Trust Vs Kerala University of Health & Allied Sci

M.R.Sukumaran Vs State of Kerala

M/S.Indus Ind Bank Ltd. Vs Regional Transport Officer