Allowed

V.P.Hamsa v. Mananthavady Municipality

Kerala HC13 Oct 2016WP(C)/32834/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a writ petition seeking protection against a demolition notice and directing the respondent municipality to consider the petitioner's objections and follow due process before passing orders.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner's objections and pass orders after affording an opportunity of hearing. Demolition stay imposed.

V.P.Hamsa Vs Mananthavady Municipality — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/21ST ASWINA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 32834 of 2016 (D)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

V.P.HAMSA

¶8

S/O MOIDU, V.P. HOUSE, MANJAKKAL, MAHI-670645, REPRSENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, P.A.ABDUL MANNAN, S/O T.P.ALI, V.P. HOUSE,' MANJAKKAL, MAHI-670 645.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.KRISHNA PRASAD. S SRI.B.NAMADEVA PRABHU

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. MANANTHAVADY MUNICIPALITY MANANTHAVADY MUNICIPAL OFFICE, MANANTHAVADY P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN:670 645, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶12

2. THE SECRETARY MANANTHAVADY MUNICIPALITY, MANANTHAVADY MUNICIPAL OFFICE, MANANTHAVADY P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN:670 645.

¶13

3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN:695001.

¶14

R3 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SURIN GEORGE IPE

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No. 32834 of 2016 (D)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

EXHIBIT P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 17.7.1998.

¶20

EXHIBIT P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A4/8225/16 DATED 17.8.2016 BY THE SECRETARY, MANANTHAVADY MUNICIPALITY.

¶21

EXHIBIT P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 31.8.2016 TO THE NOTICE BY THE PETITIONER.

¶22

EXHIBIT P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE BEARING NO.12880 DATED 31.8.2016.

¶23

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE

JJJ

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶29

W.P.(C) No. 32834 of 2016 (D)

¶30

-----------------------------------------Dated: 13^th October, 2016

¶31

J U D G M E N T

¶32

The petitioner is aggrieved with Ext.P2 demolition notice issued by the 1^st respondent, to which Ext.P3 objection was filed. The petitioner's grievance is that Ext.P3 objection has not been considered till date by the 1^st respondent.

¶33

Considering the confined prayer made, there shall be a direction to the 1^st respondent to consider Ext.P3 objection and pass orders, in accordance with

¶34

law, after affording an opportunity of hearing. The demolition threatened as per Ext.P2 notice shall be kept in abeyance till the orders are passed and if the orders are prejudicial to the petitioner, no coercive proceedings shall be taken to carryout the demolition

¶35

W.P.(C) No. 32834/2016

¶36

-2-

¶37

unless the 30 days' period for filing an appeal before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institution is over.

¶38

The Writ Petition is disposed of without any observation on merits, which shall be decided by the 1^st

¶39

respondent.

¶40

Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶41

jjj 13/10/16

V.P.Hamsa v. Mananthavady Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.P.Hamsa v. Mananthavady Municipality

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

Jose Vs Alagappanagar Grama Panchayath

Suresh George Vs Thrikkakara Municipality

Swapna Riju Vs the State of Kerala

V.v.Minerals Vs Union of India

Appu K.K. Vs Irinjalakkuda Muncipality

M/S Kerala Communicators Cable Ltd. Vs Union of India