Dismissed

A.Abdul Vaheed v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 May 2016OP/4556/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this unlimited election petition, the court observed that the matter had become infructuous as the petitioner failed to respond to a notice for payment. A subsequent judgment by another judge dismissed the writ petition finding the notice compliant, but directed the respondent corporation to consider the petitioner's case for bunk allotment if new bunks are constructed in the future.

What the court decided

AI extract

A.Abdul Vaheed Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013/8TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935

¶5

OP.No. 4556 of 2003 (P)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

A.ABDUL VAHEED, RESIDING AT TC.48/111, PALLYTHERUVU, POONTHURA.(D I E D).

¶8

*ADDL.P2 TO P6 IMPLEADED:

¶9

P2. SAINABA BEEVI, AGED 55 YEARS, W/O.LATE ABDUL VAHEED, T.C.63/216, SHYJA MANZIL, PALLY STREET, POONTHURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

P3. SHYLA SIRAJ, D/O.LATE ABDUL VAHEED, AGED 35 YEARS, T.C.63/219, SHARUG MANZIL, PALLY STREET, POONTHURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

P4. SHAJEELA SHANAVAS, D/O.LATE ABDUL VAHEED, AGED 33 YEARS, T.C.66/20 (45), SHANAVAS MANZIL, PACHALLOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

P5. SHYNA SULAIMAN, D/O.LATE ABDUL VAHEED, AGED 30 YEARS, T.C.13/1817, ARRA 84, AVITTOM ROAD, KUMARAPURAM, MEDICAL COLLEGE PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

P6. SHYJA PEERU MOHAMMED, D/O.LATE ABDUL VAHEED, AGED 27 YEARS, T.C.46/500, FARHAM, PALLY STREET, POONTHURA PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

*ADDL.P2 TO P6 ARE IMPLEADED AS THE LEGAL HEIRS OF 1ST PETITIONER AS PER ORDER DATED 1/12/2010 IN I.A.NO.15626/2010.

¶15

BY SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR,SENIIOR ADVOCATE ADVS.SRI.S.M.PRASANTH SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ SRI.M.MANOJKUMAR (CHELAKKADAN) SMT.ASHA BABU SMT.AMMU CHARLES

Kss

..2/-

...2....

O.P.NO.4556/2003 (P)

¶20

RESPONDENT(S):

¶21

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM.

¶22

2. CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶23

3. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT, TRIVANDRUM.

¶24

**ADDL.R4 IMPLEADED:

¶25

R4. SRI.P.MANIKANTAN NAIR, S/O.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, MAKAYIRAM, KALESWARAM, VALIAVEEDU HOUSE, MANACUDE PO, TRIVANDRUM.

¶26

**(ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 1/03/2004 IN I.A.NO.2486/2004)

¶27

***ADDL.R5 IMPLEADED:

¶28

R5. SRI.S.RAJENDRAN, T.C.NO.25/790, MSR LANE, THYCAUD PO, TRIVANDRUM.

¶29

**(*ADDL.R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 9/09/2004 IN I.A.NO.11938/2004)

¶30

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SAREENA GEORGE R2 BY ADV. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON,SC,TVM CORPN. R3 BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA,SC,KSRTC SRI.JAMES KOSHY.N., SC. KSRTC R4 BY ADV. SRI.S.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR

¶31

THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-11-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

..3/-

Kss

...3....

OP.NO.4556/2003 (P)

¶36

J U D G M E N T

¶37

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the matter has become infructuous. The original petition is closed as infructuous without examining the merits of the grounds raised.

¶38

29/11/2013

¶39

SD/- A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI,JUDGE

/True Copy/

P.A.to Judge

Kss

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. ............................................................. O.P.No.4556 of 2003

¶44

............................................................. Dated this the 25^th day of May, 2016

¶45

J U D G M E N T

¶46

The petitioner, who is now represented by his legal heirs, was a holder of a bunk shop in East Fort, Trivandrum. It is stated that on 09.11.1994, the 2^nd respondent Corporation caused the petitioner's bunk to be removed. Thereafter, the 1^st respondent constituted a Committee for preparing a Scheme for rehabilitation of those who were effected by the removal of the bunks. Based on the recommendation of the said Committee, 32 bunks were proposed to be constructed at East Fort near the Stan Tourist Home in the property belonging to the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC). It would appear that, pursuant to the norms that were formulated by the Committee for allotment of bunks, and directions issued from this Court in several writ petitions that were filed seeking an implementation of the decisions of the Committee constituted by the 1^st respondent, the respondent Corporation prepared a priority list for allotment of the bunks. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was listed in Serial No.8 in that list and

¶47

O.P. No.4556 of 2003

¶48

-2-

¶49

was even alloted bunk No.3 from among the bunks that were constructed by the KSRTC. In the writ petition, it is the case of the petitioner that while a friend of his, who was similarly situated and who was also included in the priority list, received a communication from the KSRTC with regard to payment of the necessary amounts for allocation of the bunk, a similar notice was not received by the petitioner although, he was also included in the priority list for allotment of bunks. It is under those circumstances, that he approached this Court through the present writ petition. As already noted, during the pendency of the writ petition, the original petitioner expired and his legal heirs have since been impleaded.

¶50

In a counter affidavit filed on behalf of the KSRTC, it is stated that a notice dated 28.10.2002 was in fact issued to the petitioner directing him to make the payments necessary for allotment of bunk and it was only when the petitioner failed to respond to the said notice, and failed to make the payments that were stipulated, that the KSRTC took a decision to allot the bunk in question to another person based on the directions issued by this Court in Contempt of Court Case No.104 of 1997. It is stated

¶51

-3-

¶52

O.P. No.4556 of 2003

¶53

that the bunk in question has since been allotted to another person and the said person is continuing therein. It is also brought to my notice that as of now, there are no bunks available for allotment to the petitioners.

¶54

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing counsel for the KSRTC, the learned Standing counsel for the 2^nd respondent Corporation and the learned Government Pleader for the official respondents.

¶55

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I find that based on the averments in the counter affidavit and the documents produced along with the said counter affidavit, it is apparent that a notice dated 28.10.2002 was in fact sent to the petitioner and, for reasons best known to the petitioner, he did not respond to the same by making the necessary payments for allotment of the bunk to him. Under the said circumstances, the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that the KSRTC had committed any illegality in not allotting a bunk to him despite the fact that he was included in the priority list of persons entitled for the bunks in question. The

¶56

-4-

¶57

O.P. No.4556 of 2003

¶58

learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the KSRTC may be directed to consider his case for allotment of a bunk in case there is any construction of new bunks in the said premises in future. The learned Standing counsel for the KSRTC would submit that as of now, there is no proposal for construction of bunks and as and when there is a new construction of bunks, the petitioner's case for allotment of a bunk can be considered taking note of the fact that he was a person who was displaced by the action that was initiated by the 2^nd respondent Corporation in 1994, and that he was also a person who featured in the priority list prepared by the KSRTC on that occasion. It is made clear that the petitioner's entitlement for allotment of a bunk, if any, will be considered based on the value fixed by the KSRTC at the time of its allotment. Save for the above observations in respect of the petitioners, the writ petition is otherwise dismissed.

¶59

Sd/-

¶60

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶61

mns/25.05.16

¶62

O.P. No.4556 of 2003

¶63

-5-

A.Abdul Vaheed v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A.Abdul Vaheed v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammed Nizar.T.v. Vs Balan.K

Suryakumar Vs Kseb

Jolly Joseph Vs the Secy. Grama Panchayat, Pattanakkad

Proprietrix Essem Brothers Vs C.Krishnan

Lenid Foot Care Private Llimited Vs Bank of Baroda

Mr.Binoy Vs State of Kerala & Others