Allowed

Prasannan A.S. v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Jun 2016WP(C)/10922/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala regularized the building number allocated to the petitioner and directed the 2nd respondent to confirm the same. The Court also directed the 3rd respondent to regularize the provisional electric connection granted to the petitioner, noting that statutory vertical clearance and necessary consents were met.

What did the court decide?

The building number allotted to the petitioner shall be regularized by the 2nd respondent, and the provisional electric connection shall be regularized by the 3rd respondent.

Prasannan A.S. Vs the State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/24TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 10922 of 2009 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

PRASANNAN A.S., ALUKKATHARA HOUSE, VALLIVATTOM, THRISSUR, PIN-680 124.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVT., LOCAL SELF GOVT.DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

2. THE VELLANGALLUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, (SPECIAL GRADE), KONATHUKUNNU, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 123.

¶12

3. THE ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E.B., TRANSMISSION CONSTRUCTION SUB DIVISION, VALAPPAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶13

ADDL.R4 IMPLEADED

¶14

4. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KSEB, VELLANGALLUR.

¶15

ADDL.R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 27/10/10 IN IA.14581/10

¶16

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.J.RAJASREE

¶17

R2 BY ADVS. SRI.VAKKOM N.VIJAYAN

¶18

SMT.V.RENJU SRI.P.ANIYAN SMT.M.A.RAMITHA

¶19

R3 &4 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON,SC,KSEB

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

¶22

WP(C).No. 10922 of 2009 (I)

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶25

P1: TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 15/9/2008

¶26

P2: TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN WHICH IS APPROVEDBY THE R2 DATED 15/9/2008

¶27

P3: TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER DATED NIL.

¶28

P4: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BY THE R2 DATED 23/3/2009

¶29

P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER TO THE 2NDS RESPONDENT.

¶30

P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO EX.P5 LETTER.

¶31

IA.14582/2010

¶32

P5: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BY THE R4 DATED NIL.

¶33

IA.2782/2011

¶34

P6: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BY FROM THE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR DATED 4/2/11.

¶35

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶36

R3(A): COPY OF THE TREE CUTTING NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R3

¶37

R3(B): COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 5/4/2008 SENT BY MRS.AGNES DAVIS TO THE ASST.ENGINEER, TC SECTION NO.2, K.S.E.B, KODUNGALLUR.

¶38

R3(C) COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14-8-2008 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE R3.

¶39

R3(D): COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION SUBMITTED BY THE R3

¶40

R3(D)A: COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE IRINJALAKUDA POLICE STATION

¶41

R3(E): COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED NIL SENT BY THE R3 TO THE R2

¶42

R3(F): COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER

¶43

R3(G): COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER

....2/-

..2..

WP(C).No. 10922 of 2009 (I)

¶48

R3(H): COPY OF THE SKETCH SHOWING THE LIE OF THE BUILDING OF THE PETITIONER AND THE 11KV LINE.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶53

= = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.10922 of 2009

¶54

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 14^th day of June, 2016

¶55

JUDGMENT

¶56

1.The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P4 order issued by the 2^nd respondent Grama Panchayat, by which it was stated that the consent of the 3^rd respondent is required for the consideration of the petitioner's application for numbering the building constructed by him.

¶57

2.A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 2^nd respondent contending that the property in which the construction was made had been notified by the 3^rd respondent for drawing of a 110KV line and therefore the consent from the 3^rd respondent was necessary for making construction in the property. An additional counter affidavit has been filed by the 3^rd respondent dated 26.05.2016 wherein it is stated that on the basis of an undertaking given by the writ petitioner, the petitioner had submitted the requisite plans which were verified and the grant of electric connection was recommended by the Electrical Inspector, since the building constructed by

¶58

W.P.(C).No.10922/09

¶59

¶60

the petitioner had the statutory vertical clearance. It is further stated that consent letter had been obtained from the petitioner for the purpose.

¶61

3.In the above circumstances, what remains is only for regularisation of the numbering of the building and the electric connection granted to the petitioner. Considering the contentions advanced by the writ petitioner as well as the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents, it is directed that the number allotted to the petitioner's building shall be regularised by the 2^nd respondent and the provisional electric connection granted to the petitioner shall also be regularised by the 3^rd respondent on that basis.

¶62

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶63

sd/-

¶64

Anu Sivaraman, Judge

¶65

Prasannan A.S. v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasannan A.S. v. the State of Kerala

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

Hmt Employees Union (Citu) Vs the Chairman and M.D.

Mohammed Shafi Vs K.v.Vijayan

Jacob C.K. Vs Reghu Raman

Joseph Jacob Vs Kerala State Electricity Board and Ors.

Shobhana Narayanan Vs State of Kerala

Jayasree K.V. and Others Vs State of Kerala and Others