Allowed

T.Radhakrishnan v. the Kozhikode Municipal Corporation

Kerala HC6 Dec 2019WP(C)/1028/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the Kozhikode Municipal Corporation's resolution for failing to consider the petitioner's prior application and the Revenue Officer's recommendations as directed in an earlier judgment. The court ordered the Corporation to reconsider the matter within one month after hearing the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P6 set aside; direction to reconsider petitioner's application in one month after hearing.

T.Radhakrishnan Vs the Kozhikode… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.1028 OF 2019(C)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

T.RADHAKRISHNAN SON OF CHATHU, SREEPATHI, THIRUTHIYAD POST, KOZHIKODE 673 004

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE KOZHIKODE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE KOZHIKODE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, BEACH P.O., KOZHIKODE 673 032

¶11

2 THE SECRETARY KOZHIKODE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, BEACH P.O., KOZHIKODE 673 032

¶12

R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SYAMANTHAK R1-2 BY ADV. SHRI.SRIVIDYA K R1-2 BY ADV. SMT.BINDUMOL JOSEPH

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No.1028 OF 2019 2

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

The petitioner has approached this Court

¶17

impugning Ext.P6 decision taken by the Council of the Kozhikode Municipal Corporation, on the specific ground that it has been issued in blatant violation of the directions of this Court in Ext.P5 judgment.

¶18

The petitioner says that this Court had, in the said judgment, directed the Corporation to take a decision on the application made by him, a copy of which had been noticed in the said judgment as Ext.P1, adverting to the recommendations of the Revenue Officer of the Corporation, which had been produced in the said judgment as Ext.P9 and which is produced herein as Ext.P4; but that Ext.P6 order has been issued without adverting to the same in any manner what so ever. The petitioner, therefore, prays that Ext.P6 be set aside.

¶19

The learned Standing Counsel for the

¶20

Kozhikode Corporation - Smt.Bindumol Joseph, submits that the afore allegations of the

¶21

WP(C).No.1028 OF 2019 3

¶22

petitioner are not correct, since Ext.P6 order

¶23

has been issued after adverting to all necessary and relevant inputs, including the recommendations of the Revenue Officer. She says, therefore, that Ext.P6 is irreproachable and prays that this writ petition be dismissed.

¶24

Even when I hear the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation on the afore lines, it is without doubt that, when one examines Ext.P6 closely, there is absolutely no reference to the manner in which the recommendations of the Revenue Officer of the Corporation had been looked into. The impugned order is totally silent as on this aspect; and

¶25

therefore, even if the Corporation had considered the same, there being no reference

¶26

to it in the order impugned, I deem it

¶27

appropriate to set aside the same; and to consequentially direct the Corporation to reconsider the matter in the manner ordered in Ext.P5 judgment.

¶28

Resultantly and without entering into the

¶29

WP(C).No.1028 OF 2019 4

¶30

merits of the rival contentions of the parties on its merits and for the sole reasons above, I order this writ petition and set aside Ext.P6; with a consequential direction to the Corporation to reconsider the petitioner's application implicitly in the manner as has been ordered in Ext.P5 judgment.

¶31

This exercise shall be completed by the Corporation after hearing the petitioner, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and the resultant order shall be communicated to him without any avoidable delay thereafter.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

MC/6.12.19

¶36

WP(C).No.1028 OF 2019 5

¶37

APPENDIX

¶38

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶39

EXHIBIT P1	THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE COUNTER OF THE PETITIONER AND ITS FRONTAGE INTENDED FOR THE WAITING SHED
EXHIBIT P2	THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE OCCUPANCY OF THE SO CALLED WAITING SHED AND ITS ELEVATION FROM THE BUS BAY
EXHIBIT P3	THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 14.7.2011 OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CORPORATION
EXHIBIT P4	THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE PROJECT ENGINEER OF THE CORPORATION
EXHIBIT P5	THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.4.2017 IN WPC NO. 21728/2015
EXHIBIT P6	THE TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION APPROVING THE DECISION NO. 14 OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE FINANCE HELD ON 29.6.2017
EXHIBIT P7	THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 13.4.2018 BEFORE THE CORPORATION UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005
EXHIBIT P8 RESPONDENT'S/S EXH	THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 8.5.2018 FURNISHED BY THE CORPORATION TO THE APPLICATION UNDER THE RTI ACT 2005 IBITS:
ANNEXURE R2(A)	A TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION NO.14 DATED 29.06.2017 OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE FOR FINANCE.
MC
	(TRUE COPY) PA TO JUDGE

T.Radhakrishnan v. the Kozhikode Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Radhakrishnan v. the Kozhikode Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baby K.D Vs the Director of Mining and Geology

Manoj Tharakan Jose Vs the District Geologist

Kalladichola Harijan Colony Committee Vs the District Collector

Jayasree.K.N, Vs Cheranelloor Grama Panchayath

Sajeeda Beevi Vs Pathanamthitta Municipality

Gopinathan Vs State of Kerala