Remanded

Kalladichola Harijan Colony Committee v. the District Collector

Kerala HC5 Dec 2019WP(C)/4553/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court refused to conclusively decide the writ petition on merits due to disputed facts regarding colony boundaries and project location. It directed the District Panchayat Secretary to hear all parties and decide the matter within one month.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Secretary of the 2nd respondent to hear parties and decide upon merits within one month; construction to cease until a decision is made.

Kalladichola Harijan Colony Committee Vs the District… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.4553 OF 2019(T)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

KALLADICHOLA HARIJAN COLONY COMMITTEE

¶8

(I.H.D.P.COLONY) PERUVAYAL, KAYALAM (PO), KOZHIKODE - 673 661, REP. BY THE PRESIDENT SRI.SUDAKARAN.K.M., S/O.RAMAN, AGED 45, KALLADICHOLA HARIJAN COLONY KAYALAM, KOZHIKODE - 673 661.

¶9

BY ADVS.

¶10

SRI.M.VIVEK RABINDRANATH SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE - 673 020.

¶13

2 THE DISTRICT PANCHAYATH, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE - 673 020, REP. BY THE SECRETARY.

¶14

3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

¶15

LSGD KOZHIKODE DIVISION, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT PANCHAYATH, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE - 673 020.

¶16

4 THE DISTRICT OFFICER FOR SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICE OF SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE - 673 020.

¶17

5 THE SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER KUNNAMANGALAM BLOCK PANCHAYATH, KUNNAMANGALAM (PO), KOZHIKODE - 673 571.

¶18

6 PERUVAYAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PERUVAYAL, POOVATTUPARAMBA (PO), REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, KOZHIKODE - 673 008.

¶19

7 THE SECRETARY, PERUVAYAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PERUVAYAL, POOVATTUPARAMB (PO), KOZHIKODE - 673 008.

¶20

*8 ADDL.R8 - PRADEEP KUMAR, S/O.DR.P.KUNJHAN, ASWATHY, THAROL, PERUVAYAL(PO), KOZHIKODE673 008

¶21

*9 ADDL.R9 - DR.P.KUNJHAN, ASWATHY, THAROL, PRUVAYAL (PO), KOZHIKODE-673 008

¶22

WP(C).No.4553 OF 2019

¶23

¶24

***(ADDL.R8, R9 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 12.03.2019 IN I.A.NO.2/19 IN WP(C) 4553/19)**

¶25

BY ADV. SRI.VINOD SINGH CHERIYAN BY ADV. SRI.T.M.KHALID BY ADV. SMT.K.P.SUSMITHA BY ADV. SRI.LEO LUKOSE SPL.GP. K.V.PRAKASH

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

WP(C).No.4553 OF 2019

¶28

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

The petitioner, which is stated to be an Association of persons formed for the benefit of the residents of 'Kalladichola Harijan Colony' at Kozhikode, has approached this Court impugning the action initiated by the official respondents to construct a “Samskarika Nilayam” Cultural Centre beyond the confines of the said colony and in a property that has been donated by two other individuals, which, according to them, is more than 5 Kms away from the Colony.

¶31

The petitioner says that the Cultural Centre has been sought to be constructed under a project called “20182019 Kalladichola Samskarika Nilayam, Peruvayal”, and that since it is funded under the Special Component Fund for Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes, it cannot be set up anywhere else other than within the confines of their Colony. They, therefore, pray that the attempt of the official

¶32

WP(C).No.4553 OF 2019

¶33

¶34

respondents to construct the “Samskarika Nilayam” outside the area of the colony be interdicted.

¶35

In response, Sri.K.V.Prakash, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents, submits that, as has been stated in the counter affidavit, the boundaries of the colony in question have not been properly identified or delineated and therefore, that the petitioner cannot asserts that the Cultural Centre should be constructed at a particular place of their choice. He says that, the present location has been identified based on the fact that the SC/ST community in the locality are scattered and not merely within the area which the petitioner claims; and further, so as to provide maximum reach for the Centre to all such persons but not merely the persons whom the petitioner is representing. The learned Special Government Pleader asserts that, therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable and prays that it be dismissed.

¶36

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the

¶37

WP(C).No.4553 OF 2019

¶38

¶39

6^th respondent-Panchayath, also adopts most of the submissions afore made by Sri.K.V.Prakash, adding that attempt of the petitioner appears to be highly confutative, since they want the Centre to be monopolized by the persons they represent and not to be accessed by other members of the SC/ST community. He says that since the territorial boundaries of the Colony have not been properly identified or delineated, the assertions in this writ petition are completely without basis; and thus prays that this writ petition be dismissed.

¶40

When I consider the afore submissions, it is without doubt that while on one hand the petitioner asserts that the boundaries of the colony are well defined and that the Cultural Centre can be constructed only within such boundaries; the official respondents and the Panchayath assert otherwise, stating that the boundaries of the colony are not delineated and that attempt of the petitioner is to monopolize the Centre to be constructed. I am thus certain

¶41

WP(C).No.4553 OF 2019

¶42

¶43

that this is a matter which will have to be considered by the competent Authority, after hearing the petitioner also, since there are clear disputations of facts, into which this Court cannot enter into affirmatively, while acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and also because it will require an assessment of various germane and relevant factual circumstances and inputs.

¶44

I am consequently, of the firm view that the 2^nd respondent-District Panchayat, Kozhikode, must hear the petitioner and decide whether their objections are credible, leading to a final order in terms of law, after also hearing the Secretary of the Panchayat and the 5^th respondent - The Schedule Caste Development Officer, Kozhikode.

¶45

In the afore circumstances and for the reasons above, I order this writ petition, without entering into the dialectical contentions of the parties on its merits; and direct the Secretary of the 2^nd respondent-District Panchayat, to hear the President of the petitioner - Association, the Secretary of

¶46

WP(C).No.4553 OF 2019

¶47

¶48

the 6^th respondent-Grama Panchayat and the 5^th respondentSchedule Caste Development Officer and issue appropriate proceedings, after assessing their rival contentions properly and on its merits.

¶49

The afore exercise shall be completed by the Secretary of the 2^nd respondent, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and further construction of the “Samskarika Nilayam” shall be continued only thereafter, depending upon the decision to be taken by him.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶52

¶53

WP(C).No.4553 OF 2019

¶54

¶55

APPENDIX

¶56

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶57

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF THE KALLADICHOLA HARIJAN COLONY COMMITTEE BEARING REG.NO.985/1997.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE PROJECT REPORT DT.30/11/2018 OF 2018-2019 KALLADICHOLA SAMSKARIKA NILAYAM, PERUVAYAL.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT.18/01/2019 SENT TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT. 18/01/2019 SENT TO THE SECRETARY, DISTRICT PANCHAYATH, KOZHIKODE.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT. 18/01/2019 SENT TO THE DISTRICT OFFICER SC DEPARTMENT, KOZHIKODE.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF 31 HOUSES IN THE COLONY.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH OF THE COLONY AND THE HOUSES SITUATED IN THE COLONY.

Kalladichola Harijan Colony Committee v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalladichola Harijan Colony Committee v. the District Collector

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

V.Bhagyalakshmi Vs the Secretary

D.Sugathan Vs State of Kerala

Velayudhan Nair Vs the Secretary

Baby K.D Vs the Director of Mining and Geology

Manoj Tharakan Jose Vs the District Geologist

Joseph Ouseph, Vs District Collector