Dismissed

Dr. Sanil Kumar.J.G v. the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation

Kerala HC12 Jul 2018WP(C)/3588/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a writ petition filed by a petitioner seeking to quash an order of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions which directed the petitioner to implead a third party in appeal proceedings. The court found no illegality, arbitrariness, or unfairness in the Tribunal's direction.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed.

Dr. Sanil Kumar.J.G Vs the Thiruvananthapuram… — 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

THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 21ST ASHADHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 3588 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

DR. SANIL KUMAR J.G., S/O GANGDHARAN NADAR, 'AISWARYA', T.C.66/126, PONKULAM, VELLAYANI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI. M.R.ANANDAKUTTAN SMT.M.A.ZOHRA SRI.MAHESH ANANDAKUTTAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 031.

¶11

2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER (LSGD), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 031.

¶12

3. THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 028.

¶13

R1,R2 BY ADV. SRI .N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.) R1,R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR, SC, TVPM CORPORATION

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

P.T.O.

¶16

WP(C).No. 3588 of 2018 (W)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶19

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF SETTLEMENT DEED NO.2461/2014 DATED 15.10.2014 OF CHALAI S.R.O.

¶20

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE CORRECTION DEED VIDE DOCUMENT NO.1031/2015 OF S.R.O., CHALAI.

¶21

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 11.7.2016. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED ON 24.10.2016 BY THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶22

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVED PLAN DATED 24.10.2016 ALSO SHOWING THE SURVEY NUMBER WHERE THE BUILDING IS LOCATED.

¶23

EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DATED 16.2.2017 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶24

EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL NUMBERED AS APPEAL NO.165/2017 BEFORE THE LSGD TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶25

EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER/APPELLANT IN APPEAL NO.165 OF 2017.

¶26

EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.11.2017 IN APPEAL NO.165/2017 OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNEMNT NSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶27

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

St/-

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶32

W.P.(C) No.3588 of 2018

¶33

----------------------------------------------Dated this the 12^th day of July, 2018

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Ext.P9 order dated 23.11.2017 passed by the 3^rd respondent viz., the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram in Appeal No.165/2017, directing the petitioner herein to take steps to implead a person viz., Rajendran, since the action was initiated against the petitioner on account of the complaint filed by the said person. According to the petitioner, there is no reason for impleading such person in the appeal proceedings pending before the Tribunal, and the question to be decided is, whether the petitioner has encroached into the property of the 1^st respondent Corporation, and in that process the person directed to be impleaded is not a necessary party. It is also the case of the petitioner that the complaint filed by the said person is a bogus complaint.

¶36

¶37

W.P.(C) No.3588 of 2018

¶38

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the 1^st and 2^nd respondents and perused the pleadings and the documents on record.

¶39

The sole question to be considered is, whether any manner of interference is warranted to Ext.P9 order passed by the Tribunal dated 23.11.2017, viz., Ext.P9. It is an admitted fact that, action was initiated against the construction carried

¶40

out by the petitioner on the basis of the complaint filed by Rajendran, who is directed to be impleaded as a necessary party in Ext.P9. On verification of the records, and the pleadings put forth by the petitioner, I do not find any reason to interfere with the said order, since there is no illegality, arbitrariness or unfairness on the part of the Tribunal directing the petitioner to do so, by invoking the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶41

Therefore, the writ petition fails, accordingly it is dismissed. However, I make it clear that the 3^rd respondent shall make all efforts to finalize the proceedings pending in appeal pertaining to Ext.P9, at the earliest, and at any rate,

¶42

¶43

W.P.(C) No.3588 of 2018

¶44

within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

SHAJI P. CHALY

JUDGE

St/12.07.2018

Dr. Sanil Kumar.J.G v. the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Sanil Kumar.J.G v. the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation

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

Shaji Sivanandan Vs Smt. Jasmin.T.B

Sunny P.J. Vs Sureshkumar T.K.

Babu Vs Elamkunnapuzha Grama Panchayat

M/S.Ekk & Company Vs Sri.Manoj Joshi

Mr.Rajendran Vs State of Kerala

M.Unnikrishna Menon Vs State of Kerala