Disposed

Riyas v. Secretary, Koduvally Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC23 Feb 2015WP(C)/7084/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the petitioner challenging the respondent panchayat's failure to act on his representation regarding unauthorized advertisements in a bus shelter he constructed. The court disposed of the petition by directing the respondent to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders after giving the petitioner a hearing opportunity.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent panchayat to consider the petitioner's representation (Ext.P2) and pass appropriate orders within one month, affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, if not alre

Riyas Vs Secretary, Koduvally Grama Panchayath — 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

MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/4TH PHALGUNA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No.7084 of 2013 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

RIYAS,AGED 36 YEARS,S/O.N.P.ABOOBACKER, M/S.TRITAN ADVERTISING COMPANY, “MIRWAZ”,CUSTOMS ROAD,VADAKARA.

¶8

BY ADV.SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN

¶9

RESPONDENT:

¶10

SECRETARY,KODUVALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KODUVALLY-673 572.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.K.M.FIROZ

¶12

SMT.M.SHAJNA

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

WP(C).No.7084 of 2013 (I)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶18

EXHIBIT P1:COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE RESPONDENT DATED 23/12/2009.

¶19

EXHIBIT P2:COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT DATED 9/1/2013.

¶20

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

¶26

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶27

W.P(C) No.7084 of 2013

¶28

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶29

Dated this the 23^rd day of February, 2015

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

The petitioner is the proprietor of an advertising

¶32

company named Tritan Advertising Company, Mavoor Road, Kozhikode. The respondent panchayat invited tenders for proposal of construction of illuminated bus waiting shelter of Koduvally bus stand owned by the panchayat. Petitioner is the successful bidder. By Ext.P1, the respondent informed the petitioner that the panchayat had passed a resolution granting permission for construction of illuminated bus waiting shelter in the bus stand of respondent panchayat for a period of 10 years. Petitioner initially wanted the advertisement for 15 years. However, it was restricted to 10 years by the panchayat.

¶33

Accordingly, the petitioner commenced the work and he was maintaining the bus shelter properly in the manner in which the panchayat desired; it is alleged. There is no complaint from any quarters regarding the same. While so, certain other advertisements appeared in the bus shelter. On enquiry it was

¶34

WP(C)7084/13

¶35

-:2:-

¶36

understood that it was on account of the permission given by the respondent panchayat. The petitioner immediately sent Ext.P2 representation to the respondents on 9.1.2013 requesting them to remove the advertisement boards other than those maintained by him. However, the respondents have not taken any steps. It is with this background, the petitioner has come up before this Court.

¶37

When the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner shall be satisfied if a direction be given to the respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2.

¶38

Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P2 after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard if the same has not been already disposed of. This shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE

¶41

krj

Riyas v. Secretary, Koduvally Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Riyas v. Secretary, Koduvally Grama Panchayath

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

Haseena. P Vs the Indian Oil Corporation Limited

K.Anandavally Vs State of Kerala

Sakeer Vs the District Collctor

C.K.Basheer 49 Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Hakkim Sherif Vs State of Kerala

Ashraf Ali S Vs the Kerala State Warehousing Corporation