Disposed

Vasudevan Pillai v. State of Kerala & Others

Kerala HC3 Mar 2017WP(C)/30718/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petition challenged the Tribunal's order granting liberty to seek regularization of a building. The court held that the Tribunal acted in conformity with the law. As differences were reconciled and regularization was permitted, the writ petition was closed without passing costs.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is closed; no order as to costs; parties to suffer respective costs.

Vasudevan Pillai Vs State of Kerala & Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH 2017/12TH PHALGUNA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 30718 of 2009 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

VASUDEVAN PILLAI, AGED 69 YEARS, S/O.LATE ARAYANAN NAIR, RESIDING AT:, HINDU BHAVAN, PALACE WARD, KRISHNAPURAM P.O., KAYAMKULAM.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEWS

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

2. KAYAMKULAM MUNCIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KAYAMKULAM. 3. G. SANKARA PILLAI, S/O.GOVINDA PILLAI, `SANKARA MANGALATHU', KUNNATHALUMOODU, KRISHNAPURAM VILLAGE, KAYAMKULAM.

¶12

R1 BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. RAJI T. BHASKAR R2 BY ADV. SRI.RAYA SHENOI,SC,KAYAMKULAM MUNICIPALITY R3 BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI R3 BY ADV. SMT.P.M.NASEEMA

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

WP(C).No. 30718 of 2009 (H)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

P1 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.12.2008 ISSUED BY SECOND RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER

¶19

P2 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.03.2009 ISSUED BY SECOND RESPONDENT TO PETITIONER

¶20

P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.06.2008 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT

¶21

P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN APPEAL NO.734/2008

¶22

P5 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.04.09 OF THE HON'BLE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN O.P.1382/08

¶23

P6 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.13531/2009

¶24

P7 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.13532/2009

¶25

P8 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.08.09 IN FILE NO.PW2-6218/09 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶26

P9 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.08.09 IN WRIT APPEAL NO.1378/2009

¶27

P10 COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM IN APPEAL NO.698/2009

¶28

P11 COPY OF THE ORDER OBJECTION FILED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL FR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS

¶29

P12 COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY PETITIONER IN THE APPEAL

¶30

P13 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.09.09 OF THE TRIBUNAL LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS IN APPEAL NO,698/09

¶31

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶32

R1(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE NOTE OF THE KAYAMKULAM MUNICIPALITY RECEIVED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT

TRUE COPY

P.S. TO JUDGE

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

¶37

============================== W.P.(C)No.30718 of 2009

¶38

============================== Dated this, the 03^rd day of March, 2017.

¶39

J U D G M E N T

¶40

The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram, a copy of which has been appended to this writ petition as Exts.P13, whereby, the Tribunal granted liberty to the 3^rd respondent to apply for regularisation of his building under Rule 144 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules. The petitioner has impugned this order on the ground that the Tribunal has no such power to allow the 3^rd respondent to seek regularization of his illegally constructed building.

¶41

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Shri.V.Philip Mathews and the learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality Shri.R.Raya Shenoy.

¶42

I have examined Ext.P13 order that has been

¶43

impugned in this writ petition. It is clear that the

¶44

W.P.(C)No.30718 of 2009 : 2 :

¶45

Tribunal has considered all the facts and attendant circumstances involved in this case and after an elaborate consideration of all such facts, have concluded that the 3^rd respondent can be given an option to seek regularization. This order appears to have been issued for good cause because, when the 3^rd respondent makes an application for regularization, obviously, he would be under the constraints of law to bring his building in conformity with the Building Rules and by doing so, most of the apprehensions of the petitioner would stand allayed. The Tribunal, being the last fact finding authority, has acted in conformity with the Acts, Rules and Regulations and has exercised its discretion that is vested in it. I do not think, therefore, that I can, acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, consider the disputed facts as a court of appeal and I am of the view that the conclusions of the Tribunal does not warrant any interference.

¶46

The Remaining question is as to the liberty given to the 3^rd respondent by the Tribunal to seek regularization. I am told by the learned counsel that the

¶47

W.P.(C)No.30718 of 2009 : 3 :

¶48

3^rd respondent accordingly had made an application and that the Municipality had allowed such regularization. He says that therefore, as of now, nothing remains and that the parties have reconciled their differences. The learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality Shri. R.Raya Shenoy also conforms this and says that the Municipality has issued orders permitting regularization and all consequential action has been completed.

¶49

In such circumstances, I see no reason to issue any further orders in this writ petition. The writ petition is closed. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I

¶50

make no order as to costs and the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE.

¶53

Bb/08/03/2017

¶54

[True copy]

¶55

P.A to Judge

Vasudevan Pillai v. State of Kerala & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vasudevan Pillai v. State of Kerala & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

E.Velayudhan Vs the Director of Collegiate Education

R.Gopalakrishnan Vs the Kerala State Financial Enterprises

M.Syed Alavi Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Rahiman Vs the State of Kerala

The State of Kerala Vs Ramesan

K.v.Muraleedharan Vs the Managing Committee