Disposed

Said Mohammed v. Vazhakulam Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC21 Oct 2016WP(C)/25114/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a Panchayath Secretary's notice regarding an alleged unauthorized toilet. The court directed the Secretary to personally hear the parties after physical inspection rather than delegating to the Grievance Redressal Cell.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; petitioner and 3rd respondent directed to appear before Secretary; Secretary directed to finalize matter after hearing within three weeks; no demolition pending.

Said Mohammed Vs Vazhakulam Grama… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/29TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 25114 of 2016 (L)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

SAID MUHAMMED. M.M., MUNDAKKAMOLAM HOUSE, NADAKKAVU, SOUTH VAZHAKKULAM P.O., ERNAKULAM.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.P.SREEKUMAR,

¶9

SMT.V.A.HARITHA, SMT.MARY RESHMA GEORGE, SMT.SANDHYA R.NAIR, SMT.P.M.MAZNA MANSOOR.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. VAZHAKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAZHAKKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MARAMPALLY P.O., ALUVA-683 107.

¶12

2. THE SECRETARY, VAZHAKKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MARAMPALLY P.O., ALUVA-683 107.

¶13

3. RAMLA, ARIMBASSERY HOUSE, S. VAZHAKKULAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686 670.

¶14

R1 & R2 BY ADVS. SRI.C.A.NAVAS, SC,

¶15

SRI.P.A.SHAJI SAMAD, SRI.T.K.SASIKUMAR, SMT.E.G.AMBILY, SMT.NAJMA T. RASHEED. R3 BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

rs.

¶18

WP(C).No. 25114 of 2016 (L)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶21

P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PLAN.

¶22

P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 04/05/2016 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.

¶23

P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 17/06/2016.

¶24

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-

¶25

EXT.R1A	COPY OF THE UNDERTAKING LETTER DATED 24/10/2014 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER.
EXT.R3A	COPY OF THE DECISION COMPLAINT REDRESSAL CELL OF PANCHAYATH ON 10/05/2016.
EXT.R3B	COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 04/07/2014 LODGED BY 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT.R3C	COPY OF THE WRITTEN ASSURANCE DATED 24/10/2014 GIVEN BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.(C) No.25114 of 2016 - L

¶32

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

¶33

Dated this the 21^st day of October, 2016

¶34

J U D G M E N T

¶35

The petitioner's grievance is against the order passed

¶36

by the Secretary on the dictates of a Committee constituted for Grievance Redressal. The petitioner had applied for construction

¶37

as per Ext.P1, in which a toilet was situated in front of the building. In such circumstance, the petitioner did not carry out such construction, but however, sought to maintain a toilet, which is on the northern portion of his building, which, according to him is pre-existing.

¶38

The 3^rd petitioner, the neighbouring property owner; to the east of the petitioner's property, was aggrieved

¶39

with such toilet being used near to her building. Earlier there was a similar dispute, in which the petitioner is said to have undertaken that there would be no toilet constructed on the eastern side of the petitioner's building. This undertaking is

¶40

¶41

W.P.(C) No.25114 of 2016 - L

¶42

produced as Ext.R3(c). The contention of the 3^rd respondent is that even now the objectionable toilet is situated on the north eastern corner of the petitioner's property. In any event, these are matters, which has to be considered by the Secretary, after looking into whether there was an existing toilet in the said property prior to the construction now carried on.

¶43

The Secretary has issued Ext.P3 only as per the

¶44

decision of the Grievance Redressal Cell. The petitioner's contention is that the Secretary is conferred with the power to consider the complaint and cannot abdicate such powers in favour of the Grievance Redressal Cell. The Grievance Redressal Cell could mediate between the parties and on agreement between the parties, pass an order and not otherwise. Here it is also alleged that the Chairman of the Grievance Redressal Cell is the relative of the 3^rd respondent.

¶45

Without going into such complaint of bias raised, it

¶46

has to be found that the Grievance Redressal Cell cannot issue directions as is found in Ext.R3(a) nor can the Secretary abdicate

¶47

¶48

W.P.(C) No.25114 of 2016 - L

¶49

his powers conferred under the statute. In such circumstance, the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent shall appear before the Secretary and the Secretary if necessary, after getting a due report on physical inspection shall consider the issue in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court has merely noticed the contention of either parties and not observed on the merits of such contentions.

¶50

The writ petition would stand disposed of, directing the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent to appear before the Secretary on 28.10.2016 at 11.am and directing the Secretary to finalise the same after affording an opportunity for hearing, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. In the meanwhile, no demolition shall be made. No costs.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

K. VINOD CHANDRAN,

JUDGE

SB/21/10/2016

// true copy //

P.A to Judge

Said Mohammed v. Vazhakulam Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Said Mohammed v. Vazhakulam 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

Mohammed Basheer Vs State of Kerala

George T.P. Vs the Registrar of Births and Deaths

Rishikesan Nair v. Vs the State of Kerala

Ambujakshi.P Vs A.P.M. Mohammedhanish

Usha Devi Vs A.P.M Muhammed Hanish IAS

Antony V.A. Vs a.Jayalatha