Dismissed

Pavakkulam Sree Mahadeva Temple v. Xavier George.N.J.

Kerala HC10 Dec 2019RP/1156/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review petition by third persons challenging a previous order regarding road naming. The Court held no case for review as the Secretary of the Corporation was granted liberty to take independent decisions considering documents produced by parties. Petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

Review petition disposed of confirming the Secretary of the Corporation is at liberty to take an independent decision considering documents produced by parties.

Pavakkulam Sree Mahadeva Temple Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶5

RP.No.1156 OF 2019 IN WP(C). 37282/2015

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 37282/2015(I) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONERS:

¶8

1 PAVAKKULAM SREE MAHADEVA TEMPLE PERANDOOR ROAD, KALOOR REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, K.P. MADHAVAN KUTTY S/O.LATE RAMAKRISHAN PILLAI, AGED 69 YEARS, KUTTAMATH HOUSE, ACS SCHOOL ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHIN 682 017.

¶9

2 JAYACHANDRAN.G., AGED 52 YEARS S/O.O.K. GOPALAKRISHNAN UNNI NAIR, CC 72/1898, KATTAYIL HOUSE, PERANDOOR ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI - 682 017.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V. SRI.AKHIL.T.S.

¶11

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS IN W.P.C)25179/2016:

¶12

1 XAVIER GEORGE.N.J. NADUVILE HOUSE, LFC ROAD, NORTH KALOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682017.

¶13

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

¶14

3 CORPORATION OF COCHIN , REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ERNAKULAM-682011,

¶15

4 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER CORPORATION OF COCHIN, EDAPPALLY AREA OFFICE, EDAAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682024.

¶16

5 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE ERNAKULAM TOWN POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM -682018.

¶17

RP.No.1156 OF 2019

¶18

¶19

6 UNNIKRISHNAN B.R AGED 38 YEARS S/O PRABHAKARAN NAIR, CONVENOR, PERANDOOR BHAGAVATHY TEMPLE, ELAMAKKARA P.O, KOCHI- 682026.

¶20

7 M.N.MURALEEDHAR , AGED 57 YEARS S/O M.G.NANDIKESHWAR, PRESIDENT, SREEMAN DHATHATHREYA DEVASTHANAM, ELAMAKKARA, PIN - 682026

¶21

8 E.V.BIJU EDAKKADAVIL HOUSE, SECRETARY, DHEEVARA MANDALAM SAABHA, AKDS NO.83, ELAMAKKARA PIN - 682026.

¶22

9 K.R.RAJESH KAYAPILLY, PARAMBU, SECRETARY, GANAPATHI TEMPLE, (KUDUMBI SAMUDAYAM) ELAMAKKARA. R6, R8 & R9 BY ADV. SRI.K.ARJUN VENUGOPAL R1 BY SRI.JULIAN XAVIER R2 & R5 BY SRI.THANKAPPAN, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER R3 & R4 BY SRI.V.E.ABDUL GAFOOR

¶23

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

RP.No.1156 OF 2019

JUDGMENT

This review petition is filed seeking to review

¶28

the judgment dated 29.11.2018. The review petition is filed by third persons basically apprehending that on the basis of the findings contained in the judgment, the Secretary of the Corporation, as directed in the judgment, may not take any independent decision. In fact in the judgment itself, I have clearly directed the Secretary of the 2^nd respondent Corporation to restore the board starting from Kaloor Junction as Little Flower Church road, if the road originally had such name, if required by using force by resorting to Police protection, in accordance with the provisions of the Municipality Act, 1994. It was also made clear that, the party respondents viz., 3^rd respondent to 8^th respondent are at liberty to approach the

¶29

authorities of the Corporation seeking naming of the road, which shall be considered in accordance with law, after securing necessary participation of all concerned. In my considered opinion, the direction was so clear and the Secretary of the Corporation was given liberty to take an independent decision in the

RP.No.1156 OF 2019

matter.

In that view of the matter, I do not think anything is made out to entertain this review petition filed by the petitioners and the review petition is disposed of making it clear that the Secretary of the Corporation is at liberty to take an independent decision taking into account the documents produced by respective parties irrespective of any observations contained in the judgment.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

Smv 11.12.2019

¶36

SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE

RP.No.1156 OF 2019

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶41

ANNEXURE A	A TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 11.02.2015.	REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE
ANNEXURE B	A TRUE COPY OF THE 05.12.2018 ISSUED	TELEPHONE BILL DATED BY THE BSNL ERNAKULAM.
ANNEXURE C	A TRUE COPY OF THE ISSUED BY THE PUBL THE CORPORATION OF	LETTER DATED 06.04.2013 IC INFORMATION OFFICER OF COCHIN.
ANNEXURE D	A TRUE COPY OF THE DISTRICT GAZETTERS SUPERINTENDENT REG WITH TYPED COPY.	RELEVANT PAGES OF THE ISSUED BY THE IONAL ARCHIVES ERNAKULAM
ANNEXURE E	A TRUE COPY OF THE DISTRICT DEVELOPME THE YEAR 1971 ALON COCHIN CORPORATION RELEASED UNDER RTI REGIONAL ARCHIVES	RELEVANT PAGES OF THE NT COMMITTEE REPORT OF G WITH SURVEY MAP OF OF THE YEAR 1971 BY THE SUPERINTENDENT, ERNAKULAM.

Pavakkulam Sree Mahadeva Temple v. Xavier George.N.J.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pavakkulam Sree Mahadeva Temple v. Xavier George.N.J.

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

The Manager, Vs the State of Kerala

Ramani M., Vs Abdul Azeez

Dr.C.K.Geetha, Vs Kerala Agricultural University

Vinay.v.N. Vs All India Council for Technical Education

Celeeshia Joseph Vs the Mahatma Gandhi University

Sudha P.S. Vs Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University