Dismissed

Ajitha v. Mala Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC9 Jun 2017WP(C)/4325/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an eviction notice issued by the Mala Grama Panchayath after a license for a Milma booth expired. The High Court held the notice was a consequential order resulting from the Panchayath's initial failed attempt to evict, which led the petitioners to file a civil suit. Finding no fresh cause of action, the Court dismissed the petition and granted two weeks time to vacat

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted two weeks time to vacate the premises.

Ajitha Vs Mala Grama Panchayath — Specific Performance | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/19TH JYAISHTA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 4325 of 2017 (M)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. AJITHA, AGED 42 YEARS, W/O. KRISHNAN, VYPPUKKARAN HOUSE,

¶8

VALIYAPARAMBU DESOM, KURUVILASSERY VILLAGE, CHALAKKUDY TALUK.

¶9

2. SAFIYA @ SUBAIDA, AGED 43 YEARS, D/O. ALIYAR, KATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, VALIYAPARAMBU DESOM, KURUVILASSERY VILLAGE, CHALAKKUDY TALUK.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK.

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. MALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MALA P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT -680 731, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶13

2. THE SECRETARY, MALA GRAM PANCHAYATH, MALA P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT -680 731.

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SAJEEV.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

rs.

¶17

WP(C).No. 4325 of 2017 (M)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶20

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 04-06-2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶21

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S NO.463/2016 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF COURT, CHALAKKUDY.

¶22

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN I.A NO. 1096/2016 IN O.S NO. 463/2016.

¶23

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN O.S.463/2016.

¶24

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 06-01-2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶25

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 19-01-2017 GIVEN BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶26

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. E 1656/17 DATED 06-02-2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶27

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-

¶28

EXT.R1A COPY OF THE LICENCE AGREEMENT DATED 19/01/2001 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONERS AND TWO OTHERS IN FAVOUR OF THE THEN SECRETARY OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶29

EXT.R1B COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.F/6211/15 DATED 16/12/2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶30

EXT.R1C COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 22/12/2015 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶31

EXT.R1D COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.9 DATED 10/03/2016 ENTERED IN THE MINUTES BOOK.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶36

W.P.(C).No.4325 of 2017

¶37

Dated this the 9^th day of June, 2017

¶38

J U D G M E N T

¶39

The petitioner was aggrieved with Ext.P7. The contention raised in the writ petition was that the petitioner was carrying on a Milma booth under license from the Panchayath which was not renewed after a period of time. The petitioner has an allegation that since he was vending coffee and tea in the booth, he was asked to vacate.

¶40

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Panchayath submits that in fact the petitioner had filed a suit as seen from Ext.P2 as O.S.No.463 of 2016, in which the petitioner had sought similar prayers. The petitioner was not able to obtain any interim order from the Civil Court. The petitioner submits that pending the suit, he was issued with an eviction order which has been challenged in the original petition. This Court is not ready to accept the contention that Ext.P7 is a fresh cause of action. The original attempt of the Panchayath, to evict the petitioner, resulted in the suit being filed. No orders having been issued, necessarily Panchayath

¶41

W.P.C.No.4325/2017

¶42

¶43

proceeded with eviction and issued Ext.P7, which is a consequential order. In such circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P7. The petitioner is granted two weeks time to vacate the premises. Writ petition dismissed with the above reservation. No costs.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

(K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE)

¶46

TRUE COPY

¶47

P.A.TO JUDGE

¶48

DG/9.6.17

Ajitha v. Mala Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajitha v. Mala 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

Babu K.A. Vs State of Kerala

The Secretary, Kottamkara Grama Panchayath Vs R.Sanjeev

Mr.Sivakumar G. Vs the Federal Bank Ltd.

Pallickathodu Grama Panchayath Vs State of Kerala

Sri.K.C.Babu Vs State of Kerala & Others

M/S.Ashapura Minechem Pvt.Ltd Vs the Ministry of Environment and Forests