Dismissed

Mayakrishna Mooppan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Nov 2019WP(C)/20134/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the government's decision to establish a court complex at the ITDP office in Attappadi, affirming the District Collector's view that the proposed site was more suitable than an isolated goat farm.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the decision to establish the court complex at the ITDP office was dismissed.

Mayakrishna Mooppan Vs State of Kerala — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.20134 OF 2019(R)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 MAYAKRISHNA MOOPPAN AGED 52 YEARS S/O.RANGAN, MANTHIMALA OORU, AGALI P.O., ATTAPPADI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶8

2 MARUTHA MOOPPAN, AGED 60 YEARS S/O. KAKKI, PATTIMALAM OORU AGALI P.O., ATTAPPADI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶9

3 MANNAN MOOPPAN, OMAPPADIKA OORU, AGALI P.O., ATTAPPADI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶10

4 KAKKI MANNOOKKARAN, VANDANPARA KALLAMALA OORU AGALI P.O., ATTAPPADI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT

¶11

5 KONAN MANNOOKKARAN, PATTIMALAM OORU AGALI P.O., ATTAPPADI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶12

6 VASUDEVAN VELLAMARI OORU AGALI P.O., ATTAPPADI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶13

7 BORAN, OMAPPADIKA OORU,AGALI P.O., ATTAPPADI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶14

8 SIVAKUMAR, PATTIMALAM OORU, AGALI P.O., ATTAPPADI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶15

9 MURUGAN, ANAKKALLU OORU, AGALI P.O., ATTAPPADI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶16

BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN

¶17

¶18

WP(C).No.20134 OF 2019(R)

¶19

RESPONDENTS:

¶20

1	STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LAW DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
2	PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
3	DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT- 678 001.
4	ITDP PROJECT OFFICER, ITDP AGALI P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT- 678 581.
5	PALAKKAD DISTRICT PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DISTRICT PANCHAYATH BUILDING, NEAR CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD 678 001.
6	THE PRESIDENT,
	PALAKKAD DISTRICT PANCHAYATH, DISTRICT PANCHAYATH BUILDING, NEAR CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD 678 001.
7	ADDL R7. THE REGISTRAR (SUBORDINATE JUDICIARY),
	HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 682 031.
8	ADDL.R8. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
	WELFARE OF SCHEDULED CASTE, SCHEDULED TRIBES AND BACKWARD CLASS DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
	SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
	IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 06-11-2019 IN
	I.A. 01 OF 2019.
	R1-4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER
	R5-6 BY SRI.P.K.NIJOY, SC, PALAKKAD DISTRICT
	PANCHAYAT
	R7 BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL JACOB JOSE

¶21

WP(C).No.20134 OF 2019(R)

¶22

¶23

SMT. VINITHA GP

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

WP(C).No.20134 OF 2019(R)

¶26

¶27

W.P.(C) No.20134 of 2019

¶28

Dated 25^th November, 2019.

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

Petitioners are stated to be tribals living in and around of Attappadi area in Palakkad district. They challenge in this writ petition the decision of the respondents to establish a court complex at the place where the office of the Integrated Tribal Development Programme (ITDP) is presently functioning. It is stated by the petitioners that the establishment of a court complex in Attappadi area was a long cherished dream of the petitioners and other tribals; that the place now proposed is not a suitable place for the court complex and that the very purpose for which the Government sanctioned the court complex for the area will not be served, if it is established at the place proposed. It is also stated by the petitioners that when the Government sanctioned the court complex , the place located for the purpose initially by the District Collector was a property measuring 16 acres at

¶31

WP(C).No.20134 OF 2019(R)

¶32

¶33

Kottathara, where the goat farm of the Government is presently located and the present decision is taken in modification of the earlier decision. The case set out by the petitioners in the writ petition is that the Government goat farm at Kottathara which has an area of about 16 acres is the most suitable place for establishing the court complex and if the court complex is established at that place, the same would be conducive for the future development of the court complex. It is also the case the petitioner that the ITDP office at Agaly where the court complex is proposed now is a congested place without any parking area and other facilities. The petitioners, therefore, seek appropriate directions to the respondents to take necessary steps to establish the court complex at the Government goat farm, Kottathara.

¶34

A statement has been filed by the third respondent, the District Collector in the matter on 27.9.2019. It is stated by the third respondent in the statement that the decision to establish the court complex at the ITDP office was taken after conducting necessary inspections and after having convinced that space and infrastructure available in that office

¶35

¶36

WP(C).No.20134 OF 2019(R)

¶37

are sufficient for the purpose and also having regard to the proximity of the Sub Treasury and Police Station in the immediate vicinity. It is also stated by the third respondent in the statement that the said office is situated on the side of Mannarkkad - Chinnathadakam main road and has proper road connectivity and sufficient conveyance facility. It is also the stand of the third respondent that sufficient parking facility is also there in the compound of ITDP office. It is stated by the third respondent in the statement that even before a decision was taken to establish the court complex at the ITDP office, decision has already been taken to shift the ITDP office to the newly constructed mini civil station and space for the ITDP office has already been set apart in the said building for that office. It is also stated by the third respondent that Agaly is the main centre in the Attapadi area which is easily accessible. It is also stated by the third respondent that the goat farm at Kottathara is an isolated area and the buildings therein which are meant for sheltering the goats are not at all suitable to house a court complex. It is also stated by the third respondent that the office buildings and quarters in the

¶38

WP(C).No.20134 OF 2019(R)

¶39

¶40

goat farm are not at all spacious and suitable for the purposes of the court complex.

¶41

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Government pleader.

¶42

The place where a court complex is to be established in a district is primarily a matter for the District Administration to decide, after consulting with the judicial establishments in the district. The learned counsel for the High Court as also the learned Government Pleader submitted that the place now proposed is the most suitable place in the area. From the materials placed on record, I am unable to take a contrary view in the matter. In the said view of the matter, the writ petition is only to be dismissed and I do so.

¶43

Sd/P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶44

¶45

WP(C).No.20134 OF 2019(R)

¶46

¶47

APPENDIX

¶48

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶49

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS 1,3,4 AND 6 DATED 6.7.2019

¶50

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM DATED 13.7.2019 PUBLISHED BY THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY, PALAKKAD EDITION. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE FIRM SITE.

¶51

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEMS PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY, PALAKKAD EDITION DATED 02.10.2019

¶52

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEMS PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY, PALAKKAD EDITION DATED 05.10.2019

¶53

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

Mayakrishna Mooppan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mayakrishna Mooppan 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

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs New India Assurance Company Limited

Shamsudheen.M Vs Ibrahim Kandoth

Shameer.K Vs Ibrahim Kandoth

Chinju. K.P Vs State of Kerala

Yaqoob.P.P Vs the Tahasildar, Thaliparamba

Dominic.a Vs Kerala Water Authority