Disposed

Smitha Liju v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Jul 2018WP(C)/10058/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging municipality's handling of rent arrears for a private bus stand project. Court directed municipality to seek government sanction and attain finality on the matter promptly.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the State Government to accord necessary sanction to the municipality's decision regarding rent arrears; direction to the municipality to attain finality on the proceedings within one mon

Smitha Liju Vs State of Kerala — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2018 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 10058 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER(S)

¶7

1 SMITHA LIJU, W/O. LIJU, 37 YEARS, CHOVARAKKARAN HOUSE, NORTH CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶8

2 SURABHI BIJU, W/O. BIJU, CHOVARAKKARAN HOUSE, NORTH CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

3 PHILOMINA MATHEW, W/O. MATHEW, PULLOKKARAN HOUSE, NORTH CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV.SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶13

2. CHALAKUDY MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 307.

¶14

3. SECRETARY, CHALAKUDY MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 307.

¶15

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR. R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

WP(C).No. 10058 of 2018 (F)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

EXT.P1	TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER NOTICE DATED 03/08/2013.
EXT.P2	TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED TO 1ST PETITIONER DATED 27/08/2013.
EXT.P2A	TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED TO 3RD PETITIONER DATED 02/09/2013.
EXT.P2B	TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED 02/09/2013.
EXT.P3	TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE MUNICIPALITY DATED 10/02/2015.
EXT.P4	TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER BY THE MUNICIPALITY DATED 14/03/2018.

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)'EXHIBITS - NIL -----------------------------

/TRUE COPY/

PS TO JUDGE

TS 04.07.2018

SHAJI P.CHALY, J.

¶27

======================== W.P.(C) No.10058 of 2018

¶28

======================== Dated this the 2^nd day of July 2018

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

The subject matter of this writ petition relates to the construction of a private bus stand by the Chalakkudy Municipality and the auction proceedings thereafter. Petitioner was a participant in the bid. Petitioner became the successful bidder. According to the petitioner, the bus stand could be made functional only in the year 2018. Petitioner has submitted application seeking exemption from the payment of rent arrears from the year 2013. In fact, from Ext.P3 it is evident that, taking into account various constrained circumstances, municipality has taken a decision not to accept the rent arrears till such time, the rooms become functional. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the municipality, municipality is not vested with ample powers to take such a decision, since the amount is exceeding Rs.10,000/-, therefore, it has forwarded to the State Government for according necessary sanction, which is pending consideration.

¶31

W.P.(C) No.10058 of 2018

¶32

¶33

According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, even though the fees for D & O licence is received, the application is not accepted. It is also submitted that unless and until a a direction is issued to the municipality, petitioner will be put to serious prejudice, since more than a Crore is expended by the petitioner, and is remaining with the municipality.

¶34

Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader as well as the Counsel appearing for the municipality, I am of the considered opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of with suitable directions. Since the subject matter pertaining to according sanction to Ext.P3 decision taken by the Municipality is pending consideration before the State Government, there will be a direction to the 1^st respondent to attain a finality to proceedings pertaining to Ext.P3, at the earliest possible time and at any rate within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and communicate the same to the respondent municipality. In the meanwhile, I make it clear that the respondent municipality will be at liberty to receive the application from the petitioner, but

¶35

W.P.(C) No.10058 of 2018

¶36

¶37

consideration of the same will be guided by the orders passed by the Government as directed above.

¶38

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶39

Sd/

¶40

SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE

¶41

jm/

¶42

\True copy \

¶43

PA to Judge

Smitha Liju v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smitha Liju 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

K.a.Abraham Vs a.Shynamol

Santhosh S Vs Kamalavardhana Rao

Knm Arts & Science College Vs P.K.Radhakrishnan

Sasikumar Vs the Senior Manager

Sherly Vs District Level Authorized Committee

Bappu Vadakkayil Vs the Tanoor Municipality