Partly allowed

M.K.Malik v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Jul 2019WP(C)/10958/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of two connected writ petitions regarding a mosque application. It dismissed the petition challenging the District Collector's communication as the underlying rejection order was final. Conversely, it allowed the petition for demolition to prevent religious activities, directing authorities to act within one month.

What did the court decide?

W.P.(C).No.39235 of 2018 dismissed. W.P.(C).No.10958 of 2019 disposed of by directing respondents to prevent religious activities and demolish construction within one month.

M.K.Malik Vs State of Kerala — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF JULY 2019 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.39235 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

ABDUL GAFOOR, AGED 43 YEARS S/O.KUNJUMUHAMMED, NJAVELIPARAMBIL, PULLUT, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.HARISH R. MENON SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR, COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOL, THRISSUR- 680001.

¶11

2 THE KODUNGALLUR MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT- 680664.

¶12

3 MANJANA MUSLIM MAHAL JUMA-ATH COMMITTEE, PULLUT, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN- 680664.

¶13

BY ADVS. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.AKBAR.K.A SRI.K.A.NOUSHAD SRI.P.P.BIJU

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.07.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).10958/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

W.P.(C). Nos. 39235 of 2018 & 10958 of 2019

¶16

-2-

¶17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶18

PRESENT

¶19

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶20

WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF JULY 2019 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1941

¶21

WP(C).No.10958 of 2019

¶22

PETITIONER/S:

¶23

M.K.MALIK, AGED 74 YEARS S/O. KUNHAMMU, MANJANA HOUSE, PULLOOT P.O, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT

¶24

BY ADVS.

¶25

SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SRI.H.PRAVEEN (KOTTARAKARA)

¶26

RESPONDENT/S:

¶27

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001

¶28

2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 001

¶29

3 KODUNGALLUR MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 664

¶30

4 SUB - INSPECTOR OF POLICE KODUNGALLUR POLICE STATION, KODUNGALLUR P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 664

¶31

-3-

¶32

W.P.(C). Nos. 39235 of 2018 & 10958 of 2019

¶33

5 ABDUL GAFOOR S/O. KUNHU MUHAMMED, NJAVELIPARAMBIL PULLOOTT, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT- 680 664

¶34

BY ADVS. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR SRI.A.G.PRASANTH SRI.HARISH R. MENON

¶35

OTHER PRESENT:

¶36

SNR GP:HARISH

¶37

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.07.2019, ALONG WITH WP(C).39235/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶38

-4-

¶39

W.P.(C). Nos. 39235 of 2018 & 10958 of 2019

¶40

JUDGMENT

¶41

Since common issue is raised in these writ petitions, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

¶42

W.P.(C).No.39235 of 2018:- The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P4 communication dated 06.10.2018 issued by the first respondent District Collector, whereby, he has been informed that his application to have a mosque at Sy.No.182/1 of Pullut Village, has already been rejected as per order No.C8-57647/2012 dated 05.10.2015, based on the report of the Police/ Municipal/ Revenue Departments and the same has already been intimated vide order dated 05.10.2015, followed by letter No.C8-5421/2017 dated 20.03.2017.

¶43

2.1. On 04.02.2018, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader and also the learned Standing Counsel for Municipality sought time to get instructions. Notice by speed post was ordered to the third

¶44

-5-

¶45

W.P.(C). Nos. 39235 of 2018 & 10958 of 2019

¶46

respondent, returnable within two weeks.

¶47

W.P.(C).No.10958 of 2019:- This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, who is the President of Pullut Manjana Mahal Committee, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 4 to take effective steps to ensure that no religious activites are conducted in the building of the fifth respondent (who is the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.39235 of 2018) in Sy.No.182/1 in Pullut Village within a time frame fixed by this Court. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 4 to take effective steps to demolish the construction made by the fifth respondent in Sy.No. 182/1 in Pullut Village in Kodungallur Taluk within a time frame fixed by this Court.

¶48

3.1. The document placed on record as Ext.P5 is an order dated 05.10.2015 of the second respondent District Collector, whereby the application made by the fifth respondent to have a mosque in the property in question stands rejected, which is an order referred to in Ext.P4 communication dated 06.10.2018 of the District Collector,

¶49

W.P.(C). Nos. 39235 of 2018 & 10958 of 2019

¶50

-6-

¶51

produced along with W.P.(C).No.39235 of 2018).

¶52

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in both the writ petitions, the learned Government Pleader for official respondents, the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality and also the learned counsel for the party respondent.

¶53

The issue that arises for consideration in these writ

¶54

petitions is as to whether the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.39235 of 2018, who is the fifth respondent in W.P.(C).No.10958 of 2019, can have a mosque in the property in question.

¶55

As evident from Ext.P5 order dated 05.10.2015 in W.P.(C).No.10958 of 2019, the application made for having a mosque at the property in question has already been rejected by the District Collector. In the absence of any challenge, the said order has attained finality. In such circumstances, the petitioner in W.P.(C).No. 39235 of 2018, who is the fifth respondent in W.P.(C).No.10958 of 2019, cannot have a mosque in the property in question.

¶56

As already noticed, Ext.P4 communication, which is

¶57

-7-

¶58

W.P.(C). Nos. 39235 of 2018 & 10958 of 2019

¶59

under challenge in W.P.(C).No.39235 of 2018, is only a communication issued by the District Collector, whereby the petitioner has been informed that the application seeking permission to have a mosque in the property in question stands rejected by the order dated 05.10.2015. Having failed to challenge the order of rejection before the appropriate forum, at appropriate time, the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.39235 of 2018, is not entitled for any of the reliefs in that writ petition. In the result, W.P.(C).No.39235 of 2018 fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶60

Since Ext.P5 order dated 05.10.2015 of the District Collector, rejecting the application made by the fifth respondent to have a mosque in the property in question stands unchallenged, the petitioner in W.P.(C).10958 of 2019 is entitled for the relief sought for in that writ petition. Accordingly, W.P.(C).No.10958 of 2019 is disposed of by directing respondents 1 ot 4 to take effective steps to ensure that no religious activities are conducted in the building of the fifth respondent in Sy.No.182/1 in Pullutt Village, in view of

¶61

W.P.(C). Nos. 39235 of 2018 & 10958 of 2019

¶62

-8-

¶63

the rejection of application, vide Ext.P5 order.

¶64

Necessary steps in this regard shall be taken, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

ANIL K.NARENDRAN

JUDGE

das

W.P.(C). Nos. 39235 of 2018 & 10958 of 2019

¶70

-9-

¶71

APPENDIX

¶72

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶73

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DAT	ORDER PASSED BY THE ED 05.10.2015.
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE 09.07.2018 IN WP(C	JUDGMENT DATED )NO.25585/2017.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE R SUBMITTED BY THE P 27.09.2018 BEFORE	EPRESENTATION ETITIONER ON THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE O 1ST RESPONDENT ON	RDER PASSED BY THE 06.10.2018.
EXHIBIT P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE THE 2ND RESPONDENT RESPONDENT DATED 0	REPORT SUBMITTED BY BEFORE THE 1ST 6.01.2017.
EXHIBIT P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE THE COUNCILOR OF W 06.07.2018 TO THE	LETTER ISSUED BY ARD NO.8 DATED 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE THE COUNCILOR OF W RESPONDENT.	LETTER ISSUED BY ARD NO.12 TO THE 1ST
EXHIBIT P8	A TRUE COPY OF THE THE COUNCILOR OF W 06.06.2018 TO THE	LETTER ISSUED BY ARD NO.13 DATED 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9	A TRUE COPY OF THE THE VICE CHAIRMAN THE 1ST RESPONDENT	LETTER ISSUED BY DATED 06.07.2018 TO .
EXHIBIT P10	A TRUE COPY OF THE THE STANDING COMMI 06.06.2018 TO THE	LETTER ISSUED BY TTEE CHAIRMAN DATED 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶74

-10-

¶75

W.P.(C). Nos. 39235 of 2018 & 10958 of 2019

¶76

EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE COUNCILOR OF WARD NO.10 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶77

-11-

¶78

W.P.(C). Nos. 39235 of 2018 & 10958 of 2019

¶79

APPENDIX

¶80

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶81

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY HAS BEEN S RESIDENTS BEFORE THE	OF THE UBMITTE BELONGS JAMA-A	MASS REPRESENTATION D BY 205 LOCAL TO MUSLIM COMMUNITY TH COMMITTEE
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY 21.11.2012	OF THE OF THE	PROCEEDINGS DATED 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY 3RD RESPON	OF THE DENT DA	PROCEEDINGS OF THE TED 17.03.2014
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY MUNICIPAL MUNICIPALI	OF THE COUNCIL TY DATE	DECISION TAKEN BY THE , KODUNGALLUR D 10.03.2014
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY 2ND RESPON REJECTING RESPONDENT	OF THE DENT DA THE APP	ORDER PASSED BY THE TED 05.10.2015 LICATION OF THE 5TH
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY RESPONDENT APPLICATIO RIGHT TO I	OF THE DATED N FILED NFORMAT	REPLY SENT BY THE 3RD 08.07.2015 TO THE BY ONE ASHARAF UNDER ION ACT
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY RESPONDENT	OF THE DATED	REPLY SENT BY THE 34D 15.12.2015
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY SUBMITTED 05.04.2016	OF THE BY THE BEFORE	REPRESENTATION PETITIONER DATED THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY 02.08.2019	OF THE IN WP(	INTERIM ORDER DATED C) NO. 25585/2017
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY	OF THE	JUDGMENT DATED
	02.08.2019	IN WP(	C) NO.25585/2017

¶82

-12-

¶83

W.P.(C). Nos. 39235 of 2018 & 10958 of 2019

¶84

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT NO.C-8-4590/2018 DATED 23-11-2018 EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 26.03.2019 UNDER RTI ACT

M.K.Malik v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.K.Malik 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Babu P.U. Vs Abraham

P.Manikantan Vs the Arayancode Grama Panchayath

Jessy Vs Lourdu Swami @ Mani

Geetha K, Vs State of Kerala

Rajeev.M.K. Vs the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Biju Zachariah, Vs Jobu Joseph Babu