Ramesh Kumaran N v. the Secretary,Thenhipalam Grama Panchayat

Kerala HC26 Nov 2018WP(C)/28743/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court of Kerala directed the Grama Panchayat to reconsider all relevant aspects and issue necessary directions to renew the petitioner's industrial lease agreement within six weeks, overriding the Secretary's refusal to implement a prior committee decision.

What did the court decide?

Grama Panchayat directed to consider all aspects and issue directions to Secretary for renewal of agreement within six weeks.

Ramesh Kumaran N Vs the Secretary,Thenhipalam Grama… — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY ,THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 28743 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

RAMESH KUMARAN N AGED 52 YEARS S/O KOPPAKUTTY, PROPRIETOR, SARADA METALS, KOYAPPA, DEVATHIYAL,THENHIPALAM PO, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 673636

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.K.K.SAIDALAVI P.E. SAJAL

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 THE SECRETARY,THENHIPALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT PO THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 673636

¶11

2 THENHIPALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, P.O.THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 673 636.

¶12

3 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY FOR R1 & R2 SMT.A.C.VIDHYA, GOVT. PLEADER FOR R3

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶16

==================

¶17

W.P.(C).No. 28743 of 2018

¶18

==================

¶19

Dated this the 26^th day of November, 2018

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

The prayers in this Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows:

¶22

“i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order or direction to call for the records relating to Ext.P-2 agreement and connected records.

¶23

ii) To issue a writ of mandamus, order or direction directing the 1^st respondent to renew the Ext.P-1 agreement of petitioner's industrial firm.

¶24

iii) to grant such other order or direction which this Honourable Court would deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶25

Heard Sri.K.K.Saidalavi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Manoj Ramaswamy, learned counsel appearing for R-1 & R-2 and Smt.A.C.Vidhya, learned Govt. Pleader appearing for R-3.

¶26

The petitioner is the proprietor of a manufacturing industrial unit in the industrial building owned by the 2^nd respondent grama Panchayat, namely “ Sarada Metals ”. That Ext.P-1 agreement was executed in that regard between the petitioner and 2^nd respondent Grama Panchayat for petitioner's occupation and use of the said premises in question owned by the 2^nd respondent Panchayat. It is further seen that tenure of Ext.P-1 agreement is over. That the

¶27

W.P.(C).28743/18 - : 3 :-

¶28

petitioner has ample scope for renewal of agreement as per the provisions of Ext.P-1. That D&O licence issued by the respondent

¶29

Panchayat is still valid. On expiry of the period of the agreement, the petitioner had approached respondents 1 and 2 to renew the agreement. Thereupon, the 2^nd respondent grama Panchayat has resolved to renew the same in favour of the petitioner, it is stated. But that the grievance of the petitioner is that the Secretary of the grama Panchayat is not implementing the considered decision taken by the 2^nd respondent Grama Panchayat. It is aggrieved by the said stand of the 1^st respondent Secretary that the petitioner has approached this Court with the aforementioned prayers.

¶30

It is reiterated by the petitioner not only in the pleadings of this petition but also in Ext.P-8 representation submitted before the 1^st respondent that despite the positive decision taken by the committee of the 2^nd respondent Grama Panchayat in favour of the petitioner for renewal of the abovesaid agreement, the 1^st respondent Secretary is not implementing the said decision of the 2^nd respondent Grama Panchayat. If that be so, the said stand of the 1^st respondent is not correct and proper, as the 1^st respondent Secretary being the official of the 2^nd respondent grama Panchayat, is obliged to carry out

¶31

W.P.(C).28743/18 - : 4 :-

¶32

the lawful decisions of the said grama Panchayat. Sri.Manoj Ramaswamy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Panchayat submits that the audit committee has objected that the building in question is to be utilized for a specified purpose, etc. and that therefore, those matters based on the objections of the audit committee are also to be taken into consideration before the request of the petitioner is taken up.

¶33

Without getting into the merits of the controversy in any manner, it is ordered that respondent No.2 grama Panchayat will reckon all the relevant aspects of the matter and give necessary and appropriate directions to R-1 Secretary with regard to the request of the petitioner for extension of the agreement, etc. Such directions issued by R-2 grama Panchayat shall be complied with by R-1 Secretary without further delay. The 1^st respondent Secretary of the grama Panchayat will take up the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P-8 representation and pass necessary orders thereon in the light of the abovesaid directions and orders that may be issued by the 2^nd respondent grama Panchayat to the 1^st respondent Secretary. Orders in this regard should be passed by the 1^st respondent Secretary without much delay, preferably within a period of 6 weeks from the

¶34

W.P.(C).28743/18 - : 5 :-

¶35

date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶36

With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition

¶37

(Civil) stands finally disposed of.

¶38

sdk+

¶39

Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶40

W.P.(C).28743/18 - : 6 :-

¶41

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28743/2018

¶42

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶43

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT DATED 3/9/2013 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶44

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER DATED 17/11/2016 ISSUED BY THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD.

¶45

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE D & O LICENCE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 25/4/2018.

¶46

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY SIDCO ON 24/12/2013.

¶47

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF AN EMPANELLED REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISUED BY THE KSIE., GOVERNMENT OF KERALA DATED 1/4/2016.

¶48

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 26/5/2018, FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO RENEW THE AGREEMENT.

¶49

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 30/6/2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶50

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FILED ON 6/8/2018 BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶51

W.P.(C).28743/18 - : 7 :-

Ramesh Kumaran N v. the Secretary,Thenhipalam Grama Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Kumaran N v. the Secretary,Thenhipalam Grama Panchayat

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

Manoli Nafeesa, Vs the Deputy Chief Engineer

A.C.Koyakidavu Vs Settlement Officer

Ramakkalmedu Green Energy (P) Ltd., Vs State of Kerala

E.G. Granites Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Vijosh Vs the State of Kerala

K.Ratnakaran Vs State of Kerala