Disposed

Syamaladevi N.G. v. Neduvathur Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC11 Mar 2015WP(C)/905/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court directed the Grama Panchayat to ensure the petitioner neither stocks nor carries on business from an unauthorised construction until regularised, reserving final decisions on licence renewal and regularisation for the Panchayat.

What did the court decide?

Respondent Grama Panchayat directed to ensure petitioner does not conduct business from unauthorised construction until regularised.

Syamaladevi N.G. Vs Neduvathur Grama Panchayath — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/20TH PHALGUNA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 905 of 2015 (K)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SYAMALADEVI N.G., AGED 57, W/O.R SADASIVAN PILLAI, THEKKEKKARA PUTHEN VEEDU, NEELESWARAM P.O, NEDUVATHOOR, KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM 691 505.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY SRI.T.A.JOY

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

NEDUVATHUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH NEELESWARAM P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT 691 505 REP BY ITS SECRETRAY.

¶11

THE SECRETARY, NEDUVATHUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, NEELESWARAM P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT 691 505.

¶12

PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KOLLAM 691 505.

¶13

GOPINADHAN NAIR S/O.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, SAROVARAM, NEELESWARAM P.O NEDUVATHOOR, KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM 691 505.

¶14

R4 BY ADV. SRI.ALAN PAPALI R4 BY ADV. SRI.NISHIL.P.S. R4 BY ADV. SRI.J.VIMAL R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.G.GOPAKUMAR

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

APPENDIX IN WP(C).No. 905 of 2015 (K)

¶17

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶18

EXT.P1 THE TRUE PHTOOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION DATED 11-10-2012 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶19

EXT.P2 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LICENCE DATED 24-11-2014 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT TOGETHER WITH TRANSLATION

¶20

EXT.P3 THE TRUE PHTOOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 22-12-2014 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶21

EXT.P4 THE TRUE PHTOOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 26-11-2014 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶22

EXT.P5 THE TRUE PHTOOCOPY OF THE LICENSE DATED 27-4-2011 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶23

EXT.P6 THE TRUE PHTOOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8-1-15 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT ALONG WITH TRUE TRANSLATION

¶24

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL.

¶25

/TRUE COPY/

¶26

P.S. TO JUDGE

¶27

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

¶28

W.P.(C)No.905 of 2015 K

¶29

Dated this the 11^th day of March, 2015

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

The challenge laid in this writ petition is against Exhibit P6 order issued by the respondent Grama Panchayat directing the petitioner to show cause why the trade licence issued to her should not be cancelled on the ground that she has been conducting the retail fertilizer business from an unauthorised building.

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has licence valid up to 31^st March, 2015, and that it is required to be renewed by the respondent Grama Panchayat. In so far as Exhibit P6 order is concerned, the singular contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it was issued based on a complaint made by the fourth respondent that the respondent Grama

¶33

WPC 905/15

¶34

¶35

Panchayat has not followed the due process while issuing the said order.

¶36

The learned counsel for the fourth respondent, at whose instance Exhibit P6 order was issued, has strenuously contended that the petitioner constructed a second building without any valid building permit. According to him, though Exhibit P2 trade licence was issued to the petitioner to carry on the business in a particular building, in violation of the said licence, she has started storing the stocks in the unauthorised building, thereby causing immense hardship to the fourth respondent and other members of the locality.

¶37

The learned counsel for the respondent Grama Panchayat has submitted that in so far as the unauthorised construction is concerned, the petitioner has already submitted an application for its regularisation. Concerning the cancellation of licence, as has been sounded in Exhibit

¶38

¶39

WPC 905/15

¶40

P6, he would submit that the very licence is to come to an end by 31^st March, 2015.

¶41

It is evident that Exhibit P6 is an appealable order. At the same time, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Exhibit P6 order was issued without adhering to the principles of natural justice. Be that as it may, unless the petitioner's unauthorised construction is regularised, she cannot be permitted to carry on any business in the said building, more particularly when trade licence was issued in Exhibit P2 authorising the petitioner to carry on the business in another building.

¶42

In the facts and circumstances, this Court directs the respondent Grama Panchayat to ensure that the petitioner neither stocks nor carries on any business from the said unauthorised construction, which is yet to be regularised by it. On inspection, if it is found that the petitioner has been still stocking the material or carrying on

¶43

WPC 905/15 4

¶44

the business from the said unauthorised building, the respondent Grama Panchayat shall take appropriate action in that regard. In so far as the renewal of licence and regularisation of unauthorised construction are concerned, it is entirely for the respondent Grama Panchayat to take appropriate decision in that regard. This Court expressly declines to make any observation therefor.

¶45

With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶46

Dama Seshadri Naidu, Judge

¶47

tkv

Syamaladevi N.G. v. Neduvathur Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syamaladevi N.G. v. Neduvathur 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

P. Madhavan Vs Valsan Madathil

T.V. Moideen Vs Chittur - Thathamangalam Municipality

Jamaludheen P.H Vs Thalikkulam Grama Panchayat

Olam Agro India Ltd. Vs the State of Kerala

Baburajan Vs the Excise Commissioner

Indus Towers Limited Vs Secretary, Kollam Corporation