Disposed

Francis Cleetus v. District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram

Kerala HC7 Nov 2016WP(C)/24382/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala HC addressed a writ petition regarding submerged land of the petitioner. The Court observed that the second respondent had issued a show cause notice and the matter was pending. It directed the second respondent to consider the objection, provide a hearing, and decide within two months. The petition was disposed of accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to consider petitioner's objection to show cause notice, provide hearing, and decide within two months.

Francis Cleetus Vs District Collector… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/16TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 24382 of 2016 (W)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

FRANCIS CLEETUS, S/O. FRANCIS, RESIDING AT CLIFFI HOUSE, TC 13/287, VANCHIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SIBI VARGHESE, S/O. M.D.VARGHESE, RESIDING AT MANJALIL HOUSE, THOKKUPARA P.O., IDUKKI, CHITHIRAPURAM(VIA), PIN-685 565.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.A.ABDUL KHARIM SRI.THOUFEEK AHAMED

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695043.

¶11

2. KERALA COSTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, SASTHRA BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶12

R1 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA

¶13

R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.R.SUNIL,

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

WP(C).No. 24382 of 2016 (W)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

EXHIBIT P1	COPY OF LETTER FROM THE DISTRICT HEAD SURVEYOR TO DISTRICT SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT DATED 5.6.2015.
EXHIBIT P2	COPY OF SKETCH.
EXHIBIT P3	COPY OF REPRESENTATION FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT, DATED 6.6.2016.
EXHIBIT P4	COPY OF RECEIPT NO.1687/16 DATED 8.6.2016 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5	COPY OF REPRESENTATION FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 4.7.2016.
EXHIBIT P6	COPY OF REGISTERED POSTAL COVER ISSUED FROM THE R2 TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P7	COPY OF THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 4/8/16.

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES

¶21

ANNEXURE R1(A)	COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 8/8/15
ANNEXURE R1(B)	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.27157/15 DATED 23/9/15
ANNEXURE R1(C)	COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU TO THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DATED 26/11/15
ANNEXURE R1(D)	COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE KERALA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY TO THE PETITIONER DATED 31/3/2016.

¶22

/ TRUE COPY /

¶23

P.S. TO JUDGE

¶24

¶25

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶26

W.P.(C). NO. 24382 OF 2016

¶27

Dated this the 07^th day of November, 2016

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

Petitioner is the Managing Director of M/s. NTC Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and other hospitality group companies. According to the petitioner, the companies possess a total extent of 30 Acres in various survey numbers in Kadinamkulam Village. The eastern boundary of the said property is adjoining Kadinamkulam Lake. An extent of 1.0603 Hectors of land in Block-I, Re.Sy. No. 73/95 and 73/96 of Kadinamkulam Village and fruit bearing coconut trees in the said extent of property was submerged in Kadinamkulam Lake and lying water logged due to erosion caused, owing to the illegal sand mining of certain persons. According to the petitioner, the failure of taking timely or effective steps to prevent the illegal acts resulted in causing

¶30

W.P.(C). NO. 24382 OF 2016

¶31

¶32

huge loss to the petitioner. Petitioner accordingly submitted a representation to the first respondent on 06.06.2016, requesting for permission to restore the above extent of registered land by reclaiming the same, as per the measurements in the survey sketch.

¶33

Thereafter, it was understood by the petitioner that the first respondent has forwarded the representation for necessary action by the second respondent. Petitioner has also preferred Ext. P5 representation, before the second respondent. But, no action was initiated by either of the authorities to ventilate the grievance of the petitioner. It is in this background seeking appropriate direction, this writ petition is filed.

¶34

First respondent has filed a statement refuting the allegations, claims and demands made by the petitioner. It is also stated that the second respondent has already issued a show cause notice to the petitioner, in respect of the issues raised by the petitioner, in this writ petition. According to the petitioner, petitioner has filed an objection

¶35

W.P.(C). NO. 24382 OF 2016

¶36

¶37

to the same. However, the same is also not considered by the second respondent. Since the subject matter is pending consideration at large before the second respondent and already a show cause notice is issued to the petitioner, it is for the petitioner to establish, whatever claims he has, with respect to the properties submerged in Kadinamkulam Lake. Petitioner has also not produced sufficient documents enabling this Court, to interfere with Annexure R1(d) show cause notice, issued by the second respondent. Therefore, it cannot be said that petitioner has made out a case warranting interference of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶38

Taking note of the respective submissions, I am of the considered opinion that the second respondent shall consider the objection submitted by the petitioner, pertaining to Annexure R1(d) show cause notice dated 31.03.2016, allegedly received by the petitioner during July, 2016 and take a decision on the same, in accordance with law, after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the

¶39

W.P.(C). NO. 24382 OF 2016 4

¶40

petitioner as well as any other interested or affected parties, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say, petitioner will be at liberty to produce any document, in order to establish his case before the second respondent.

¶41

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶42

SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶43

DCS

Francis Cleetus v. District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Francis Cleetus v. District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram

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

Vincent E. Vs Ravikrishnan N.R

G.Haridasa Sarma Vs Additional Tahsildar

Shereef Bappu Vs the State of Kerala

K.K.Sabu Vs State of Kerala

Unnikrishnana Pillai Vs the District Police Chief

Sri Poorna Chandra Rao Vs Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.