Disposed

Aneesa.T.K. v. the Assistant Director of Panchayats

Kerala HC28 Jan 2019WP(C)/2548/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition challenged Panchayat notice under Rule 16 of Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011 threatening permit revocation. Court directed Panchayat to finalize proceedings under Rule 18 within three weeks with hearing opportunity, keeping coercion in abeyance without expressing opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to 3rd respondent to finalize proceedings under Rule 18 within 3 weeks with hearing; coercion in abeyance.

Aneesa.T.K. Vs the Assistant Director of Panchayats — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

MONDAY ,THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 8TH MAGHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 2548 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

ANEESA.T.K. AGED 36 YEARS W/O. KABEER,ANUJA MANZIL, VADAKKUMTHALA, VDAKKUMTHALA EAST P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT,PIN-690 536

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW SMT.KARTHIKA SRI.ANIL SEBASTIAN PULICKEL SRI.ARUN THOMAS SRI.JENNIS STEPHEN SRI.VIJAY V. PAUL SMT.VEENA RAVEENDRAN

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM-691 013

¶11

2 KULASEKHARAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, ADINADU NORTH P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT,PIN-690 642 ADINADU NORTH P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT,PIN-690 642 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶12

3 THE SECRETARY KULASEKHARAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, ADINADU NORTH P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT,PIN-690 642

¶13

4 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, LOCALS ELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,KULASEKHARAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, ADINADU NORTH P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT,PIN-690 642

¶14

WP(C).No. 2548 of 2019

¶15

¶16

5 SMT.SUJITHA NAZAR

¶17

W/O. NAZAR, VICE PRESIDENT, KULASEKHARAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, ADINADU NORTH P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT,PIN690 642 RESIDING AT KATTUMPURATHU HOUSE, KULASEKHARAPURAM P.O., KARUNAGAPPALY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT

¶18

6 RAHEEM S/O. ABDULKHADER KUNJU, MEZHUVELIL VEETTIL, KADATHOOR MURI, KULASEKHARAPURAM VILLAGE, KARUNAGAPPALY TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT

¶19

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶20

R1-SMT.RAJI.T.BHASKAR

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

WP(C).No. 2548 of 2019

¶23

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

The petitioner has secured Ext.P1 building permit for construction of a commercial building having an extent of 29.5 sq.metres dated 23.11.2018. The limited grievance pointed out by the petitioner is that, consequent to certain directions issued by the Taluk Legal Service Authority, petitioner is served with Ext.P5 notice by the Panchayat directing the petitioner to show cause why the permit issued to the petitioner shall not be revoked.

¶26

Therefore I am of the considered view, it is a notice issued under Rule 16 of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011 to which petitioner has already submitted Ext.P6 reply. Therefore still the proceedings is to attain a finality in accordance with Rule 18 of Rules 2011. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of with appropriate directions.

¶27

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader and perused the pleadings and documents on record.

¶28

WP(C).No. 2548 of 2019

¶29

¶30

In view of the limited nature of order that I proposed to pass notice to the Panchayat and party respondents are dispensed with. There will be a direction to the 3^rd respondent to finalize the proceedings pertaining to Ext.P5, taking into account Ext.P6 objection submitted by the petitioner at the earliest possible and at any rate, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after providing opportunity of hearing to all concerned. Coercive action if any, contemplated as per Ext.P5 shall be kept in abeyance till the directives is complied. If any of the parties is relying upon any documents, copies of the documents shall be served on each other. I also make it clear that the directions contained above, shall not be construed as any expression of opinion on the merits of the matter.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE

¶33

¶34

WP(C).No. 2548 of 2019

¶35

APPENDIX

¶36

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶37

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ALONG WITH THE APPROVED PLAN ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER

¶38

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RTI ACT DATED 7.12.2018

¶39

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.12.2018 IN I.A.NO.2010/2018 IN O.S.NO.334/2018 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY

¶40

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL OPINION DATED 24.11.202018 WHICH HAS BEEN OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER RIGHT OT INFORMATION ACT

¶41

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 21.1.2019 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE PANCHAYAT TO THE PETITIONER

¶42

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SECRETARY ON 24.1.2019 TO EXHIBIT P5 NOTICE

¶43

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

Aneesa.T.K. v. the Assistant Director of Panchayats

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aneesa.T.K. v. the Assistant Director of Panchayats

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

Davood M., Vs the Kottakkal Municipality

Aboobacker Vs State of Kerala

Mohammed Shafi U. Vs Kottakkal Municipality

R.Sivasankara Pillai Vs District Collector

Nicholas P.Dias, Vs Instacure Surgical and Medical Centre (Pvt) Ltd.

Ibrahim Moidu Hassan Vs the District Collector