Dismissed

Shahul Hammed v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Oct 2017WP(C)/12640/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners challenged the highhanded action of a tenant respondent alleged to be interfering with their life. The court noted the absence of counsel for the petitioners and the respondent tenant, presumed the dispute was no longer surviving, and closed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is closed with a direction to approach appropriate authorities for any surviving grievance.

Shahul Hammed Vs State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:-

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017/13TH ASWINA, 1939

¶5

W.P(C).No.12640 of 2012 (D)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):-

¶7

1. SHAHUL HAMMED, AGED 64, S/O. AHAMMED RAWTHER, R/AT THEKKINKATTIL VEEDU, (PEEDIKA), EANATH P.O., EANATH VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶8

2. FATHIMA BEEVI, AGED 54, W/O. SHAHUL HAMEED, R/AT THEKKINKATTIL VEEDU, (PEEDIKA), EANATH P.O., EANATH VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶9

BY ADV. SMT.T.S.MAYA (THIYADIL)

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):-

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶12

2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 678 001.

¶13

3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

¶14

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, EZHAMKULAM, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-678 002.

¶15

4. THAHAZILDAR, ADOOR TALUK, ADOOR, PIN - 638 001.

¶16

5. SECRETARY, EZHAMKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, EZHAMKULAM, ADOOR, PIN - 638 001.

¶17

6. HASSAN LEBBA, THEKKUMKATTIL PEEDIKAYIL, EANATH MURI, EANATH VILLAGE, EANATHU P.O., ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 678 001.

¶18

R1, R2 & R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.A.C.VIDHYA. R3 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL. R3 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.T.R.RAJAN. R6 BY ADVS. SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF

¶19

SRI.R.KRISHNAKUMAR (CHERTHALA)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-10-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

¶21

W.P.(C).12640 OF 2012-D

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:-

¶24

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

¶25

EXT.P1 : THE COPY OF THE ORDER IN WP(C) NO.2020/2007 DTD.12.2.2007.

¶26

EXT.P2 : PHOTOGRAPHS.

¶27

EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 6TH RESPONDENT DTD.03.12.2011.

¶28

EXT.P4 : THE COPY OF THE NOTICE SENT BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT DTD.19.12.2011.

¶29

EXT.P5 : THE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DTD.11.1.2012. EXT.P6 : THE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DTD.15.2.2012.

¶30

EXT.P7 : THE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD.16.2.2012.

¶31

EXT.P8 : THE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT DTD.7.3.2012.

¶32

EXT.P9 : THE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT DTD.11.4.2012.

¶33

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:-

¶34

----------------------NIL.

¶35

Vku/[ true copy ]

¶36

K. Vinod Chandran, J

¶37

---------------------------------------W.P.(C).No.12640 of 2012-D

¶38

¶39

Dated this the 05^th day of October, 2017

¶40

JUDGMENT

¶41

None appears for the petitioners and 6^th respondent.

¶42

I have heard the learned Government Pleader and the Standing Counsel for the 3^rd respondent.

¶43

The petitioners were aggrieved with the highhanded action of the 6^th respondent, who is a tenant in an adjacent building to the house of the petitioners. The petitioners' contention was that despite the petitioners having addressed the various authorities, none took action against the 6^th respondent. The petitioners also contended that the 6^th respondent was the tenant of the father of the 1^st petitioner and that due to the enmity caused for reason of a suit filed for eviction, the 6^th respondent has been constantly interfering with the smooth life of the petitioner.

¶44

The 6^th respondent appeared and filed a counter affidavit, contending that the suit filed by the father of the 1^st petitioner seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction was dismissed

¶45

WP(C) No.12640 of 2012 - 2 -

¶46

and the appeal too stood rejected. A subsequent suit filed by the 1^st petitioner seeking eviction and compensation for damages was also dismissed.

¶47

The photograph at Exhibit P2 shows the house of the petitioners behind the shop of the 6^th respondent, which is named “Roshin Footwear”. Obviously the dispute is since the access into the house of the petitioners lies adjacent to the shop room. Since neither the Counsel for the petitioners nor the 6^th respondent is present, it can be reasonably presumed that the dispute is no longer surviving. If at all the petitioners have any surviving grievance, the petitioners can approach the appropriate authorities.

¶48

Leaving such remedy to the petitioners, the writ petition would stand closed.

¶49

Sd/- K.Vinod Chandran Judge.

¶50

vku/-

¶51

[ true copy ]

Shahul Hammed v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahul Hammed v. 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

Dr.Sangeeth Sasidharan Vs Kerala University of Health Sciences ,Represented by Its Registrar,Thrissur

Unni Cheettuparambil Vs the District Collector, Ernakulam

K.v.Kumaran Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Bari D.M. Vs State of Kerala

Sasidharan Vs Vembayam Grama Panchayat

Vijayakumar K.K. Vs State of Kerala