Dismissed

Sheela Francis v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Jul 2019WP(C)/4971/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners filed a writ under Article 226 challenging a notification and an order restricting heavy vehicle movement on a Panchayat road seeking quashers and declaration of illegality. The court dismissed the petition as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, leaving open the legal and factual contentions raised by the petitioners.

Sheela Francis Vs State of Kerala — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2019 / 31ST ASHADHA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.4971 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 SHEELA FRANCIS,AGED 59 YEARS W/O.LATE FRANCIS PARAKKAL, PARACKAL HOUSE, ASSISI LANE, ALUVA - 683 101.

¶8

2 DEEPAK FRANCIS PARAKKAL,S/O.LATE FRANCIS PARAKKAL, PARACKAL HOUSE, ASSISI LANE, ALUVA - 683 101.

¶9

3 RUPAK FRANCIS PARAKKAL, S/O.LATE FRANCIS PARAKKAL, PARACKAL HOUSE, ASSISI LANE, ALUVA 683 101. BY ADVS. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SRI.K.R.GANESH

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶12

2 THE KEEZHMAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ERUMATHALA P.O., ERNAKULAM - 683 112.

¶13

*ADDL. R3 T.N.SUNILKUMAR,AGED 38 YEARS, THOTTATHIU PARAMBIL HOUSE, KEEZHMAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ERUMATHALA. P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN-683112. (ADDL.R3 IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 07/03/2019 IN IA.NO.01/2019)

¶14

BY ADVS. SRI.ARUN ASHOK SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN SMT.NEENA JAMES BY SRI. MANURAJ K.J., GP

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.07.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No.4971 of 2019

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P6 notification dated 29.09.2015 issued by the 1^st respondent and Ext.P7 order dated 07.02.2019 issued by the 2^nd respondent. The petitioners have also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to prevent them from plying vehicles carrying goods weighing more than 10 Tons through the Panchayat Road to their commercial buildings from the Donbosco Road. The further relief sought for is a declaration that Exts.P6 and P7 are absolutely illegal, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 and 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶20

On 18.03.2019, when this writ petition came

¶21

up for consideration, this Court passed an interim order permitting the petitioners to remove the entire stock of

¶22

WP(C).No.4971 of 2019

¶23

¶24

TMT Steel kept in the buildings covered by Ext.P2 D&O licence, in container lorries, subject to the condition that damage, if any, caused to the Panchayat road or to the residents of the locality on account of such transportation of TMT Steel shall be compensated by the petitioners, and that they shall not bring any fresh stock of TMT Steel to those buildings. The petitioners were directed to file individual undertakings to that effect before the 2^nd respondent Grama Panchayat in the form of affidavits sworn to before the Notary Public. The Secretary of the 2^nd respondent Grama Panchayat was also directed that on such affidavits being filed, they shall permit the petitioners to remove the stock within a period of five days from the date of receipt of a copy of that order, subject to the conditions stated therein.

¶25

By order dated 07.03.2019 in I.A.No.1 of 2019,

¶26

a third party to this writ petition was impleaded as the additional 3^rd respondent.

¶27

WP(C).No.4971 of 2019

¶28

¶29

A counter affidavit has been filed by the 2^nd

¶30

respondent. The additional 3^rd respondent has also filed a counter affidavit.

¶31

Today, when the case is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioners has filed I.A.No.3 of 2019 seeking permission to withdraw this writ petition, with liberty to file fresh writ petition in case it becomes necessary to challenge Exts.P6 and P7 orders.

¶32

In such circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, leaving open the legal and factual contentions raised by the petitioners and reserving the aforesaid right of the petitioners.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶35

AV/24/7

Sheela Francis v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheela Francis 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muhammed Ismail Vs the District Collector

Chirayakkodu Vijayan, Vs Kerala State Election Commission

M.C.Vinod Kumar, Vs State of Kerala

Santhosh.P.P Vs Elamkunnapuzha Grama Panchayat

Jaiaraj J., Vs the Secretary

N.Vijayakumar Vs State of Kerala