Dismissed

Fr.Jolly Thappalodath v. the Mookkannur Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC7 Jun 2016WP(C)/7446/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition seeking a direction to the District Collector to decide a burial ground application. The petitioner lacked permission to fill wet land and failed to implead the Local Level Monitoring Committee, rendering the petition non-maintainable at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to decide the application cannot be granted in the absence of permission to fill wet land and impleadment of the competent authority.

Fr.Jolly Thappalodath Vs the Mookkannur Grama… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/17TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 7446 of 2011 (E)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

FR.JOLLY THAPPALODATH,

¶8

VICAR, ST JUDE'S SHRINE, YOODAPURAM, KIDANGOOR, PO, ANGAMALY.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1.THE MOOKKANNUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MOOKKANNUR, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY -683 101.

¶12

*2.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 030. ADDL. R3 IMPLEADED

¶13

3. DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, ERNAKULAM - 682 011.

¶14

ADDL. R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 27.11.2012 IN IA.15719/2012.

¶15

R1 BY ADVS.SRI.V.M.KURIAN SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN SRI.K.T.THOMAS R2 & ADDL. R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.ABHIJITH

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

mbr/

¶18

WP(C).No. 7446 of 2011 (E)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS:

¶21

EXT. P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR THE LICENCE TO OPEN A BURIAL GROUND (CEMETERY) AT MOOKKANNUR PANCHAYATH AREA VIDE APPLICATION DATED 21.4.2006.

¶22

EXT. P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.1022/2002 OF SRO, ANGAMALY.

¶23

EXT. P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24.6.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶24

EXT. P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT MADE IN W.P.(C)NO.29142/2008 DATED 3.10.2008.

¶25

EXT. P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 23.12.2008 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.

¶26

EXT. P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 12.1.2010 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶27

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶28

EXT.R1(A):	TRUE COPY OF THE BY THE PANCHAYAT	NOTICE TO THE	DATED 16.12.2002 ISSUED PETITIONER.
EXT.R1(B):	TRUE COPY OF THE BY THE PANCHAYAT	REPORT BEFORE	DATED 30.7.2008 SUBMITTED THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR.
EXT.R1(C):	TRUE COPY OF THE THE PANCHAYAT TO	LETTER DISTRIC	DATED 15.12.2008 SENT BY T COLLECTOR.
EXT.R1(D):	TRUE COPY OF THE WITH COPY OF THE PANCHAYAT COMMITT COLLECTOR.	LETTER RESOLUT EE SENT	DATED 15.12.2008 ALONG ION PASSED BY THE TO THE DISTRICT

¶29

//TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE

¶30

mbr/

¶31

P.V.ASHA J.

¶32

--------------------------------------------------

¶33

W.P.(C) No.7446 of 2011

¶34

--------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7^th day of June, 2016

¶35

J U D G M E N T

¶36

The relief sought in the writ petition is for a direction to the second respondent to consider and take a decision on Ext.P1 application filed by the petitioner as contemplated under the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Burial and Burning Ground) Rules 1998. The petitioner himself has produced Ext.P5 letter of the second respondent, by which he was informed that his application cannot be allowed except on production of permission from the concerned department, for filling up the land since the burial ground proposed was a property described as Nilam and he was directed to furnish the requisite documents before the respondents as directed by the Secretary, Grama Panchayat. It is seen that the petitioner submitted a further representation on 12.01.2010, pointing out that this Court had directed in Ext.P4 judgment to consider the

¶37

W.P.(C) No.7446 of 2011

¶38

¶39

application.

¶40

The 2^nd respondent has filed a statement stating that the representation submitted by the petitioner was received along with a report from the Secretary of the Panchayat. As per the report of the Panchayat furnished as per letter dated 30.07.2008, it was stated that the land proposed for construction of the cemetery was a wet land and application cannot be considered without producing a 'No Objection Certificate' from the Department concerned for filling up the wet land. It was also stated that the Committee of the Panchayat has raised serious objections as against it. It was in the above circumstances that by Ext.P5 letter the petitioner was directed to furnish all the requisite documents as directed by the Grama Panchayat for the purpose of filling up the wet land.

¶41

3 . Heard the learned Counsel appearing for all the

¶42

parties .

¶43

4 . Petitioner has not produced any material to show that he has got permission to fill up the Nilam and

¶44

W.P.(C) No.7446 of 2011

¶45

¶46

approached the 2^nd respondent with the same. Moreover he has not impleaded the Local Level Monitoring Committee, which is the authority competent to examine the cases relating to reclamation/filling up of wet land and to recommend the request, if found permissible. In these circumstances, no direction as sought in the writ petition can be granted. This will not prevent the petitioner from approaching the respondents producing the requisite documents including a 'No Objection Certificate', as required after approaching the Local Level Monitoring Committee.

¶47

With the above observations, this writ petition is dismissed.

¶48

Sd/- P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.

¶49

AS/08/06/16

Fr.Jolly Thappalodath v. the Mookkannur Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fr.Jolly Thappalodath v. the Mookkannur 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

K.Gopinathan Vs Pension Board

Ismail Putteyakat Vs Kerala State Electricity Board & 6 Ors.

Divya Vijayan Vs Mathew Joy

E.a.Sugatha Kumar Vs the State of Kerala

~.G.Mohanakumar Vs Sasthamcotta Co-Operative Agricultural

C.v.Babu Vs the Fertilisers and Chemicals