Disposed

Sukumohanan v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Dec 2019WP(C)/21945/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat to consider representations made by the petitioners and the fifth respondent regarding a transformer project before issuing an order within two months. The Fifth respondent opposed delay, but the Court clarified that meeting minutes do not substitute for a statutory decision.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the third respondent to consider the petitioners' representations (Exts. P3, P4) and issue an order within two months after hearing the fifth respondent.

Sukumohanan Vs the 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 DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.21945 OF 2019(P)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 SUKUMOHANAN, AGED 68 YEARS S/O.KUTTAN PILLAI, PUTHUVALVILA VEEDU, KURAKKADA P.O., KIZHIUVILAM VIA, VAILOOR VILLAGE, KORANI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

2 BABU, AGED 66 YEARS S/O.SREEDHARAN, AISWARIYA, BHAVANA JUNCTION, KURAKKADA P.O., KIZHIUVILAM VIA, VAILOOR VILLAGE, KORANI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶9

3 GOPINATHAN, AGED 53 YEARS, S/o.KALI, G.G.HOUSE, KAILATHUKONAM, KURAKKADA P.O., KIZHIUVILAM VIA, VAILOOR VILLAGE, KORANI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY ADVS.

¶11

SRI.E.M.MURUGAN SRI.SUJAY SANKAR

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶14

2 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, OFFICE OF THE DY.DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, CIVIL STATION, KUDAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 043.

¶15

3 THE SECRETARY, MANGALAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THONAKKAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 317.

¶16

4 THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶17

5 M/S. KERALA TRANSFORMERS, KURAKKADA JUNCTION, VELOOR VILLAGE, GANDHISMARAKA ROAD, KURAKKADA P.O., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MOHAJ R., AGED 37,

¶18

WP(C).No.21945 OF 2019(P)

¶19

¶20

S/O.G.RAJMOHAN, RESIDING AT GANGASARAS, MAMAM, ATTINGAL VILLAGE, KIZHUVILAM P.O., ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶21

SRI.VINOD SINGH CHERIYAN SRI.T.M.KHALID SMT.K.P.SUSMITHA SRI.L.MOHANAN SMT.LIGEY ANTONY GP - K.J.MANURAJ; SC FOR PCB - T.NAVEEN

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

WP(C).No.21945 OF 2019(P)

¶24

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Even though there are various allegations, averments

¶27

and assertions in this writ petition from both sides, when this matter was called today, the learned counsel for the petitioners made a limited request that this writ petition be ordered directing the third respondent to take up Exts.P3 and P4 representations, made by his clients before the said Authority, and dispose of the same, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶28

The learned standing counsel for the third respondent - Grama Panchayat, submitted that there is no legal impediment in Exts.P3 and P4 being taken up and disposed of ; but prays that this Court may not make any affirmative declaration on the entitlement of the petitioners to any relief and leave it to the said Authority to issue an apposite order thereon after hearing the fifth respondent also.

¶29

The learned standing counsel for the fifth respondent submitted that if this Court is confining the directions in the judgment only to the consideration of two representations, then he will not stand in the way of such course being

¶30

WP(C).No.21945 OF 2019(P)

¶31

¶32

adopted; however, with a plea that the third respondent - Secretary be directed to hear his client also before any further orders are issued.

¶33

In the afore circumstances and since the petitioners make a limited plea as recorded above, I order this writ petition and direct the third respondent to take up Exts.P3 and P4 and dispose of the same, after hearing the petitioners and the fifth respondent and issue an appropriate order thereon, as expeditiously as is possible but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶34

Needless to say, the resultant order will be communicated to both parties without any delay thereafter.

¶35

To be spoken to

¶36

Dated 19th day of December, 2019

¶37

I had heard this matter yesterday and had delivered a judgment; however, subsequently, the learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent requested that this matter be listed today as “to be spoken to”. It is in such circumstances, that this matter is listed today.

¶38

WP(C).No.21945 OF 2019(P)

¶39

¶40

The learned counsel for the fifth respondent submits that the directions in the judgment I had delivered yesterday, are unnecessary, since as is clear from Ext.R5(j) minutes of the meeting convened by the Panchayat, all the allegations and assertions made by the petitioners have also been taken note of. He, therefore, prays that the judgment be vacated.

¶41

I have examined Ext.R5(j) and it certainly is a minutes of the meeting convened by the Panchayat but that would not be a substitute for the duty of the Secretary to take a decision on the petitioners' representations. I am, therefore, certain that the Secretary should do so after following due procedure; however, adverting to Ext.R5(j) - but not being bound by it - and issue apposite orders, as per the statutory obligations cast upon him. I, therefore, do not deem it necessary to modify the judgment any manner, but only to clarify it in the manner herein.

¶42

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶43

JUDGE

¶44

Stu

¶45

WP(C).No.21945 OF 2019(P)

¶46

¶47

APPENDIX

¶48

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶49

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE PHOTOCOPY 5TH RESPONDENT	OF PROJECT REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE PHOTOCOPY REPLY GIVEN BY	OF APPLICATION UNDER RTI ACT AND THE PANCHAYATH.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE PHOTOCOPY PETITIONER ALON PANCHAYATH.	OF REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY THE 1ST G WITH RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE PHOTOCOPY RESIDENT ASSOCI	OF REPRESENTATION GIVEN THROUGH THE ATION TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE PHOTOCOPY 4TH RESPONDENT	OF REPRESENTATION GIVEN BEFORE THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE PHOTOCOPY PETITIONERS BEF RECEIPT ISSUED.	OF REPRESENTATION MADE BY ORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH

¶50

RESPOND	ENT'S E	XHIBITS:
EXHIBIT	R5(A)	COPY OF COMBINAT	THE DETAILS OF RAW MATERIALS ION.
EXHIBIT	R5(B)	COPY OF THE 5TH	THE GMAIL DATED 19.06.2019 RECEIVED BY RESPONDENT FROM THE SUPPLIER.
EXHIBIT	R5(C)	COPY OF WITH PLA	THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 21.06.2018 NS.
EXHIBIT	R5(D)	COPY OF 01.09.20	THE FIRE SAFETY CLEARANCE DATED 18.
EXHIBIT	R5(E)	COPY OF CONTROL	THE PERMISSION FROM THE POLLUTION BOARD DATED 01.10.2018.
EXHIBIT	R5(F)	COPY OF DATED 04	THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE WITH MSME .06.2019.
EXHIBIT	R5(G)	COPY OF FEDERAL	THE LOAN SANCTION LETTER FROM THE BANK DATED 08.05.2019.
EXHIBIT	R5(H)	COPY OF MUNSIFF	THE PLAINT IN O.S 278/2019 OF THE COURT, ATTINGAL.

¶51

WP(C).No.21945 OF 2019(P)

¶52

¶53

EXHIBIT R5(I) COPY OF THE INJUNCTION ORDER DATED 28.06.2019 IN O.S 278/2019 EXHIBIT R5(J) COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE ENGINEER WITH THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OBTAINED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT UNDER R1 AT ON 23.07.2019. EXHIBIT R5(K) COPY OF THE LITERATURE WITH RESPECT TO THE CAST RESIN TRANSFORMERS WHICH IS ENVIRONMENTAL FRIENDLY. EXHIBIT R3(a) COPY OF THE CONSENT NO: PCB/TVM/DO/ICE/CHZ/8712477/2018 DATED 01.10.2018 OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, TRIVANDRUM.

¶54

//TRUE COPY//

¶55

P.A TO JUDGE.

Sukumohanan v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukumohanan 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kalyani, Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

Ashokan Vs the State of Kerala

Manoj Vs State of Kerala

Sujatha C.H. Vs the Kannur Municipal Corporation

C.G.George Vs the State of Kerala

Immanuel Crushers and Mines (P) Ltd. Vs Union of India