Allowed

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

Kerala HC9 Jun 2017WP(C)/825/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order cancelling a 1992 resolution naming a Municipal Shopping Complex. The Court held that the cancellation was invalid as it was not effected within the timeframe and procedure mandated by the relevant Municipal Rules, and set aside the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Exhibit P8 order setting aside the 1992 resolution is set aside as it contravened Rule 13 of the Kerala Municipality (Procedure For Meeting of Council) Rules, 1995.

Sri.K.C.Babu Vs State of Kerala & Others — Public Procurement and Tenders | 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

W.P(C).No.825 of 2010 (C)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):-

¶7

K.C. BABU, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O. K.V. CHERU, KAKKASSERRY HOUSE, THEKKEPURAM, KUNNAMKULAM VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.C.PRABIN BENNY

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):-

¶10

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

¶11

2. THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

3. THE SECRETARY, KUNNAMKULAM MUNICIPALITY, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶13

4. THE SECRETARY,

¶14

COMMUNITY PARTY OF INDIA (MARXIST), KUNNAKUMKULAM AREA COMMITTEE, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶15

R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.RAVIKRISHNAN. R3 BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE [SR.]

¶16

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

¶17

W.P.(C) NO.825 OF 2010

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶20

EXT.P1	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 7.11.2003 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN O.P.26824/01.
EXT.P2	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY the 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 22.5.2004.
EXT.P3	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 29.5.2004 SENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P4	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.10.07 IN W.P.(C) NO.26688/07 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
EXT.P5(a)	TRUE COPY OF COVERING LETTER DT.24.4.2008 OF THE STATE ASSISTANT PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER.
EXT.P5(b)	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXT.P5(c)	TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE MINISTER.
EXT.P6	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ' DATED 4.4.2009 REFERRING THE MATTER TO THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT.
EXT.P7	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6.7.2009 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE OMBUDSMAN IN O.P.NO.501/09.
EXT.P8	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.11.2009 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P9	TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER REPORT DATED 6.1.2010 OF MALAYALA MANORAMA.

¶21

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-

¶22

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

¶23

vku/[ true copy ]

¶24

K. Vinod Chandran, J

¶25

¶26

W.P.(C).No.825 of 2010-C

¶27

----------------------------------------Dated this the 09^th day of June, 2017

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

The petitioner is aggrieved with Exhibit P8 order of the

¶30

Government.

¶31

The contention raised, by two political factions who were alternatively having control of the Municipal Council, is as to what name should be given to the Municipal Shopping Complex; whether it should be the name of the former Prime Minister of India, Priyadharshini or the former Chief Minister of Kerala, E.M.Sankaran Namboodiripad [EMS]. This Court has to opine that the naming of that building; by itself would not diminish or enhance the status of any of these leaders who have a definite place in the minds of the citizens of the country and state.

¶32

The Municipal Council which has decided, in the year 1992, to construct the building, had taken a resolution to name the building as “Priyadharshini Shopping Centre”. The next Council decided to name it “EMS Memorial Shopping Complex”. Depending on the political party in power there were conflicting

¶33

WP(C) No.825 of 2010 - 2 -

¶34

decisions taken after that by the various Councils who came to power. In 2001, the then Council again cancelled the resolution of 1992 and decided to name the building after EMS. The earlier decision was cancelled by the subsequent resolution in 2001. The subsequent resolution was challenged by the Councillors in opposition by O.P.No.26824 of 2001, which was disposed of by this Court directing the Government to take a decision. Accordingly, the Government passed Exhibit P2 order sustaining the resolution passed in 1992. One other writ petition, W.P(C).No.26688 of 2007, filed seeking implementation of Exhibit P2 order was dismissed for the reason that the Minister had cancelled Exhibit P2 order. Government thereafter referred the matter to the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions as provided under Section 57(2) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994.

¶35

By Exhibit P7, the Ombudsman opined that the resolution passed in 1992 cannot be interfered with by the Government unless it occasions danger to human life, public safety, communal harmony, riot or quarrel. The Government has, in Exhibit P8 order, made a bland assertion that there would be

¶36

WP(C) No.825 of 2010 - 3 -

¶37

disturbance of public safety if the resolution of 1992 is allowed to stand and cancelled the said resolution. This Court is not convinced that there is any warrant for such a conclusion especially since there is nothing stated in Exhibit P8 to sustain such a finding. The Ombudsman rightly opined that the cancellation of the original resolution was not in consonance with Rule 13 of the Kerala Municipality (Procedure For Meeting of Council) Rules, 1995. The earlier resolution was not cancelled within three months, by a special meeting, with the support of one half of the members. The resolution hence cannot be cancelled and legally what is sustainable is the first resolution. Exhibit P8 would stand set aside.

¶38

In disposing of the writ petition it cannot be observed that the peoples representatives have expended considerable time and effort in the naming of a building and also engaged this Courts attention repeatedly. The values, great leaders lived by, is long standing and is worthy of emulation; whatever their political affiliation or ideals. It is not the naming given to inanimate objects that preserves their memory. It would matter little to them even if

¶39

¶40

WP(C) No.825 of 2010

¶41

they were alive and what would pain them is the mindless rivalry in their name. We all could ensure the preservation of their memory

¶42

by following the ideals they cherished and lived by.

¶43

Writ petition allowed. No costs.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

K.Vinod Chandran Judge.

¶46

vku/-

¶47

[ true copy ]

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.K.C.Babu 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

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

Ajitha Vs Mala Grama Panchayath

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