Quashed

P.T.Johny Alex v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Nov 2017WP(C)/33561/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed the closing order of the petitioner's resort passed by the Grama Panchayath without an opportunity of hearing. The Panchayat was directed to take a fresh decision after affording both parties a hearing within a week.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P11 decision is quashed. The third respondent Panchayat is directed to take a fresh decision after affording the petitioner and fourth respondent an opportunity of hearing within a week.

P.T.Johny Alex Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/10TH KARTHIKA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 33561 of 2017 (U)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

P.T.JOHNY ALEX (DENNEY), AGED 51, S/O.P.J.THOMAS, PAZHAMPILLY HOUSE, DONBOSCO ROAD, VADUTHALA P.O., PIN-682023.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.V.S.BABU GIREESAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY LSGD, SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶11

2. MULAVUKAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MULAVUKAD P.O., ERNAKULAM-682504.

¶12

3. THE MULAVUKAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH COUNCIL, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, MULAVUKAD P.O., ERNAKULAM-682504.

¶13

4. MURALEEDHARAN T.K., PATTARUKADAVIL, KOTHERI ROAD, VADUTHALA, KOCHI-23.

¶14

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL R2 & R3 BY ADVS. SRI.ABRAHAM P.GEORGE

¶15

SMT.M.SANTHY R4 BY ADVS. SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY SMT.K.K.JYOTHILAKSHMY SRI.EBIN MATHEW

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

WP(C).No. 33561 of 2017 (U)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

-------------------------------------EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶22

EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE IN O.S.NO.909/2011 OF THE SUB COURT ERNAKULAM.

¶23

EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF THE SPOT INSPECTION REPORT OF THE RESPONDENTS.

¶24

EXHIBIT P4- TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.NO.8348/09/TSM DATED 30/11/2009 OF THE TOURISM DEPARTMENT.

¶25

EXHIBIT P5- TRUE COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATION DATED 01/11/2012 OF THE JOINT DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM TO THE PETITIONER.

¶26

EXHIBIT P6- TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 07/04/2012 TO THE PETITIONER.

¶27

EXHIBIT P7- TRUE COPY OF THE SANITARY CERTIFICATE DATED 22/11/2012. EXHIBIT P8- TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE FROM THE COCHIN PORT TRUST DATED 27/03/2017.

¶28

EXHIBIT P9- TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SHO MULAVUKAD POLICE STATION DATED 09/08/2012.

¶29

EXHIBIT P10- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO.1189/2011 OF THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶30

EXHIBIT P11- TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES DATED 19/08/2017 BASED ON THE PETITION DATED 30/08/2017 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND THE LETTER DATED 12/10/2017 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶31

EXHIBIT P12- TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 19/10/2017.

¶32

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS - NIL

TRUE COPY

PS TO JUDGE

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J

¶37

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(c) No.33561 of 2017

¶38

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1^st day of November, 2017

¶39

JUDGMENT

¶40

Ext.P11 is the decision taken by the third respondent Panchayat to close down a resort owned by the petitioner. It is seen that Ext.P11 decision has been taken on a complaint of the fourth respondent. Ext.P11 is under challenge in the writ petition on various grounds including that the same is one taken without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

¶41

The learned counsel for the third respondent Panchayat admits that notice has not been given to the petitioner before Ext.P11 decision has been taken.

¶42

In so far as Ext.P11 being a decision which has drastic civil consequences, according to me, a decision of that nature should not have been taken without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

¶43

W.P. (c) No. 33561 of 2017

¶44

-2-

¶45

In the circumstances, Ext.P11 decision is quashed and the third respondent Panchayat is directed to take a fresh decision on the matter after affording the petitioner as also the fourth respondent an opportunity of hearing. This shall be done within a week from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. In the light of the allegations against the petitioner as disclosed in Ext.P11 decision, it is made clear that the petitioner will not be entitled to operate the resort unless he is permitted to do so by the Panchayat during the interregnum.

¶46

Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶47

JUDGE

¶48

bng

P.T.Johny Alex v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.T.Johny Alex 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

Balakrishnan Vs the District Geologist

Pradeep C.R. Vs State of Kerala

Liji. J Vs State of Kerala

S.J.Basic Homes Pvt. Ltd. Vs the District Collector

John Mathew Vs the Village Officer, Mylapra

Binu K.K. Vs the Secretary, Corporation of Cochin