Disposed

All Kerala Anti-Corruption and Human Rights Protection Council v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Jun 2019WP(C)/10067/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Writ Petition directed the 6th Respondent, Executive Engineer, PWD Building Division, Malappuram, to inspect and take appropriate action under Section 133 CrPC regarding a dilapidated commercial building owned by the State within Tanur Municipality limits within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction was issued to the 6th Respondent to consider the petitions and take appropriate action within three months after notice to all concerned.

All Kerala Anti-Corruption and Human Rights… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 31ST JYAISHTA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.10067 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ALL KERALA ANTI-CORRUPTION AND HUMAN RIGHTS PROTECTION COUNCIL

¶8

(REG NO.CA-597/6), POST BOX NO.29, METTUPALAYAM STREET, PALAKKAD-678001, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, BAPPU VADAKKAYIL, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.KAMMUKUTTY, ABHAYAM, VADAKKAYIL HOUSE, PANANGATTOOR, TANUR, MALAPPURAM-676302.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.T.D.SUSMITH KUMAR SHRI.NANDAKUMAR K.

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA

¶12

REP.BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶13

2 THE SECRETARY,

¶14

TANUR MUNICIPALITY, TANUR, MALAPPURAM-673302.

¶15

3 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

¶16

P.W.D., ROADS DIVISION, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM-673302.

¶17

4 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

¶18

P.W.D. ROADS DIVISION, MAJERI, MALAPPURAM-676121.

¶19

5 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.W.D. BUILDING DIVISION,

¶20

MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676505.

¶21

6 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR, MALAPURAM DISTRICT-676101.

¶22

7 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM-676101.

¶23

R1, R3 TO R7 BY SMT.RASHMI.K.M,GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.6.2019, THE COURT ON 21.06.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

WP(C).No.10067 of 2019

¶26

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

Petitioner is a registered Society, incorporated under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, constituted with the objective to eradicate corruption and uplift human rights of the fellow citizen, together with an objective of uplifting the weaker sections, irrespective of their social strata. According to the petitioner, the commercial building owned by the 1^st respondent comprising shop rooms situated within the limits of the Tanur Municipality is in a dilapidated condition. Thereupon, Exts.P2 and P3 petitions were filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirur, Malappuram District. Case of the petitioner is that, in spite of all earnest efforts of the petitioner, no

¶29

action is initiated and the building is remaining in dangerous condition to the people and vehicles etc. etc. Therefore, seeks appropriate directions.

¶30

I have heard learned counsel for petitioner,

¶31

learned Government Pleader and perused the pleadings

¶32

and documents on record. Though notice is served on the

¶33

2^nd respondent, there is no appearance. Learned Government Pleader pointed out that, the Revenue

¶34

WP(C).No.10067 of 2019 3

¶35

Divisional Officer has already directed the Tanur

¶36

Municipal Secretary on 1.6.2019 seeking to forward a report, however, the Municipality has not taken any action. But in my considered opinion, since the building is belonging to the State Government, appropriate authority to take action is the 6^th respondent itself. In that view of the matter, since

¶37

the 6^th respondent is vested with ample powers under

¶38

section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a direction can be issued to the 6^th respondent to consider Exts.P2 and P3 petitions and take appropriate action in accordance with law.

¶39

Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the 6^th respondent to take action in

¶40

accordance with law taking into account Exts.P2 and P3 petitions submitted by the petitioner, at the earliest possible time and at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after providing notice of hearing and participation to all concerned.

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY

Smv 18.6.2019

JUDGE

WP(C).No.10067 of 2019

¶46

¶47

APPENDIX

¶48

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶49

EXHIBIT P1 THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING CONDITION OF THE BUILDING.

¶50

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 25.09.2018 PREFERRED BEFORE THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR.

¶51

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 14.02.2019 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR.

¶52

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 04.02.2019 ISSUED BY THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS DIVISION, TIRUR TO THE SECRETARY TANUR MUNICIPALITY.

¶53

EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO.TIRUR D1/GENERAL/917/19 DATED 01.03.2019 ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD BUILDING DIVISION, MALAPPURAM, ADDRESSED TO THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS DIVISION, MANJERI.

All Kerala Anti-Corruption and Human Rights Protection Council v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

All Kerala Anti-Corruption and Human Rights Protection Council 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jayaprakashan P. Vs the Tahsildar

Philipose K a Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Rohin.T Vs Kmct Law College

Shankar Conductors (P) Ltd., Vs State of Kerala

Anjana.D Vs State Bank of India

Murugan Vs Shaji.P.K