Disposed

Chekkini v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Nov 2019WP(C)/11742/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged inaction by panchayath authorities regarding the destruction of a public water tank by the sixth respondent. The Court held jurisdiction lay with the Grama Panchayath and directed it to restore the tank and punish the culprit within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directed Secretary of 5th respondent to hear parties and restore water tank, fixing responsibility on culpable persons and initiating action, within two months.

Chekkini Vs the 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 DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 10TH KARTHIKA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.11742 OF 2019(P)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 CHEKKINI AGED 58 YEARS

¶8

S/O. CHANGARAN, CHENGOTTUMALA, AVIDANELLUR POST, NADUVANNUR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT

¶9

2 SURESH, AGED 46 YEARS S/O. KADUNGON, POOVATHUMCHOLAYIL HOUSE, AVIDANELLUR POST, NADUVANNUR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 THE STATE OF KERALA

¶13

REP.BY SECRETARY, TO THE LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-685 001

¶14

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KOZHIKODE,PIN-673 020

¶15

3 THE BALUSSERI BLOCK PANCHAYATH, BALUSSERI BLOCK PANCHAYATH, BALUSSERI,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 612,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY

¶16

4 THE PRESIDENT,

¶17

BALUSSERI BLOCK PANCHAYATH, BALUSSERI,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 612

¶18

5 THE KOTTUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KOTTUR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 614,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY

¶19

6 THOMAS PHILIP, PROPRIETOR, M/S. DELTA ROCK PRODUCTS, MOOLAD P.O., KOZHIKDE-673 614

¶20

7 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KOZHIKODE RURAL, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,PIN-673 104

¶21

8 DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, NADAPURAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT,PIN-673 504

¶22

WP(C).No.11742 OF 2019(P)

¶23

¶24

9 THE DISTRICT SINGLE WINDOW CLEARANCE BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER,DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, KOZHIKODE-673 011

¶25

R1-2, R7-9 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER R3-4 BY ADV. SRI.M.S.AMAL DHARSAN R5 BY ADV. SRI.K.N.ABHILASH R5 BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT R6 BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU R6 BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIKRISHNAN (TRIPUNITHURA)

¶26

SRI. PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL- G.P

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

¶29

WP(C).No.11742 OF 2019(P)

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

The petitioners have approached this Court alleging that the 6^th respondent – Sri.Thomas Philip - has destroyed a public water tank vested with the 5^th respondent – Kottur Grama Panchayath, with the alleged nefarious/intention of commencing a quarry; but that no action has been taken against him by either by the 3^rd respondent – Block Panchayath or by the 5^th respondent – Grama Panchayath until now. They, therefore, pray that these two Authorities be directed to take immediate action to restore the water tank and to proceed appropriately against Sri.Thomas Philip.

¶32

Respondents 3 and 4 – Balusseri Block Panchayath - have filed a counter affidavit on record, wherein they say that under the provisions of Section 218 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (“the Act” for short), the water tank has been vested in the 5^th respondent and therefore, it is for the said Panchayath to take necessary action in terms of law against Sri.Thoams Philip, as also to restore the same to its

¶33

¶34

WP(C).No.11742 OF 2019(P)

¶35

original position. He prays that no further orders may, therefore, be issued against his clients.

¶36

Sri.K.N.Abhilash, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 5^th respondent – Kottur Grama Panchayath, submits that as soon as the information for destruction of the water tank was brought to the notice of its Secretary, he had initiated necessary action and had filed complaints before the Police Authorities. He says that all necessary action, as are required under the provisions of law, will be taken forward and completed without any further delay.

¶37

The learned counsel for the 6^th respondent sought time to file counter pleadings, but I am of the view that in the nature of the directions proposed in this judgment, such an opportunity need not be given, particularly because this writ petition has been pending before this Court for more than six months from now.

¶38

When I consider the afore submissions, it is without doubt that respondents 3 and 5 are ad idem that the water

¶39

¶40

WP(C).No.11742 OF 2019(P)

¶41

tank in question is vested with the 5^th respondent. It is also conceded before me that this tank was constructed under a drinking water project, which is indented to cater to the requirements of the residents of the said Panchayath and therefore, the obligation to ensure that the tank is restored is squarely on the competent Authorities of the 5^th respondent – Kottur Grama Panchayath. Therefore, any further delay on their side to take necessary action cannot be countenanced; and I am, therefore, of the firm view that this writ petition requires to be ordered immediately.

¶42

Resultantly, I direct the Secretary of the 5^th respondent - Kottur Grama Panchayath to forthwith hear the 6^th respondent - Sri.Thomas Philip as also the petitioner herein and then take an appropriate decision as to how and in what manner the water tank will require to be restored; and also fix responsibility on the culpable persons for its destruction and initiate action against them, including under the penal law, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

¶43

WP(C).No.11742 OF 2019(P)

¶44

¶45

judgment.

¶46

I make it clear that the persons responsible for demolition of the water tank, be that the 6^th respondent or any one else, must be brought to book and stringent action initiated and completed against them, with the assistance of other competent Authorities within the time granted herein.

¶47

After I dictated this judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioner made an apprehension that the 6^th respondent is attempting to get a clearance from the Single Window Clearance Board for starting a quarry, even though he has not restored the tank allegedly demolished by him. However, the learned Government Pleader submits that he has instructions that the application of the 6^th respondent has already been rejected and that therefore, as at present, no such application is pending. This is recorded.

¶48

Sri.K.N.Abhilash at this time interjected to say that, to his client's information, the 6^th respondent has filed an appeal before the Kerala State Single Window Clearance Board and

¶49

¶50

WP(C).No.11742 OF 2019(P)

¶51

prays that the said Authority be directed not to consider such appeal until the afore exercise is completed. I am afraid that I cannot do so in this writ petition, because these issues are not directly in question, but that the Panchayath and the petitioner herein will be at liberty to bring the directions in this judgment to the notice of the Kerala State Single Window Clearance Board appropriately, so as to enable the said Authority to take an apposite decision in terms of law.

¶52

This writ petition is thus ordered.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶55

JUDGE

¶56

Bng/01.11.2019

¶57

WP(C).No.11742 OF 2019(P)

¶58

¶59

APPENDIX

¶60

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:

¶61

EXHIBIT P1	THE TRUE COPY OF INTRODUCED BY THE	THE PROJECT REPORT 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2	THE TRUE COPY OF FORM SIGNED BY MR BALAN NAIR DATED	LAND RELINQUISHMENT .GANGADHARAN NAIR AND 31.12.1998
EXHIBIT P3	THE TRUE COPY OF BY MR. BIJU.K.M D THE 3RD RESPONDEN	THE INFORMATION SOUGHT ATED 29.03.2018 FROM T
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE THE 3RD RESPONDEN	INFORMATION GIVEN BY T TO MR.BIJU
EXHIBIT P5	THE TRUE COPY OF DATED 27.12.2018 PETITIONERS AND O RESPONDENT	THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE THERS BEFORE THE 3RD
EXHIBIT P6	THE TRUE COPY OF DATED 12.03.2018 RESPONDENT TO THE	THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 5TH 6TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P7	THE TRUE COPY OF INFORMATION FROM DATED 22.10.2018	THE LETTER SEEKING THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT	INFORMATION SEND BY THE
EXHIBIT P9	THE TRUE COPY OF 15.10.2018 FILED OTHERS BEFORE THE	THE COMPLAINT DATED BY THE PETITIONER AND 7TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P10	THE TRUE COPY OF 20.10.2018 FILED OTHERS BEFORE THE	THE COMPLAINT DATED BY THE PETITIONER AND 8TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P11	THE TRUE COPY OF NO.1228/2016 OF T	THE SALE DEED HE SRO NADUVANNUR

¶62

WP(C).No.11742 OF 2019(P)

¶63

¶64

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:

¶65

EXHIBIT	R3 (A)	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF 27/6/2006 ISSUED PANCHAYATH	THE LETTER DATED BY THE PRESIDENT,KOTTUR
EXHIBIT	R3 (B)	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF 11/8/2006	THE PROCEEDINGS DATED
EXHIBIT	R3 (C)	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF 17/4/2018	THE LETTER DATED
EXHIBIT	R3 (D)	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF 31/12/2018	THE LETTER DATED
EXHIBIT	R3 (E)	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF 25/05/2019	THE LETTER DATED
EXHIBIT	R3 (F)	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF 27/05/2019	THE LETTER DATED
EXHIBIT	R7(A)	TRUE COPY OF THE	FIR IN CR.568/2018.
EXHIBIT	R7(B)	TRUE COPY OF THE	FIR IN CRIME NO.287/19.

Chekkini v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chekkini v. the 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

Kuriakose Sabu Vs State of Kerala

Bosemon Joseph Vs Pala Muncipality

M.M. Varghese Vs the Mannarkad Municipality

Elsy Grigorious Vs State of Kerala

Kamaludheen Juma Masjid and Madrassa, Vs the Secretary , Kattakambal Grama Panchayath

Zachariah P.John Vs the Secretary, Thazhakkara Grama Panchayat