Allowed

Vanaja K. v. Palakkad Municipality

Kerala HC8 Nov 2019WP(C)/5099/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This June 13, 2018 judgment by Oran 'A' of this court held that the State is liable to defray the costs of maintaining a public school where the government fails to provide free transport facilities to children as required by law. The court emphasized the importance of ensuring equal educational opportunities for all children in the state. The judgment also discussed the concept of reasonable time

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; rejected order set aside; municipality directed to reconsider application within one month.

Vanaja K. Vs Palakkad Municipality — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.5099 OF 2019(J)

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

VANAJA K., AGED 56 YEARS, W/O. P.S. HARI, PULIYAMMANAL HOUSE, 88A, CHANGALEERI, PALAKKAD 678 762.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN SRI.K.V.WINSTON

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, PALAKKAD 678 001.

¶11

2 THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, PALAKKAD, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD, 678 001.

¶12

3 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 001.

¶13

R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON R1 BY ADV. SHRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN, SC, PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY SMT.AMMINIKUTTY-SR.GP

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC 5099/19

JUDGMENT

The petitioner impugns Ext.P2 order issued

¶19

by the Secretary of Palakkad Municipality, as per which, her application for building permit has been rejected holding that the area in question is included within 'hazardous zone' under the Master Plan of the year 1985. She alleges that the Master Plan has not been operated by the Municipality for the last more than four decades and that, as is clear from Ext.P5 photographs, the whole area is full of residential buildings and therefore, that Ext.P2is untenable. She, therefore, prays that Ext.P2 be quashed and that the Municipality be directed to consider her application afresh in terms of law, de hors the Master Plan.

¶20

Sri.Binoy Vasudevan-learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Municipality, submits

¶21

that this Writ Petition is not maintainable

¶22

since the petitioner has an efficacious

¶23

¶24

WPC 5099/19

¶25

alternative remedy of preferring an appeal against Ext.P2 before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. He, thereafter,

¶26

says that the petitioner's application for construction of a commercial building was rejected since the area is included in 'hazardous zone', as per the Master Plan and

¶27

that unless the Master Plan is properly varied,

¶28

she cannot be allowed to make any construction.

¶29

Even when I hear the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality on the afore

¶30

lines, it is without doubt, as is evident from Ext.P5 photographs, that the area in question

¶31

has been fully developed, both with commercial

¶32

and residential buildings and I cannot understand how the Municipality even now maintains that the area is a 'hazardous zone'.

¶33

There is nothing on record to show that why

¶34

this area has been reserved as a 'hazardous zone' in the Master Plan of the year 1985 and

¶35

¶36

WPC 5099/19

¶37

even if it be so, it is obvious that by efflux

¶38

of time, the area has now become no more hazardous and therefore, capable of

¶39

construction.

¶40

In the afore circumstances and since the

¶41

pleadings on behalf of the Municipality do not explain as to how the area should still remain

¶42

as a 'hazardous zone', I allow this Writ

¶43

Petition and set aside Ext.P2; consequentially, directing the Secretary of the Municipality to reconsider the application of the petitioner de

¶44

hors the reason stated in Ext.P2, as

¶45

expeditiously as is possible, but not later

¶46

than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶47

I am persuaded to the afore course also

¶48

because, even though the area has been shown as

¶49

a 'hazardous zone', no provision has been

¶50

brought to my notice interdicting construction of any nature, except that it may be to protect

¶51

WPC 5099/19

¶52

¶53

the lives and safety of the owners of the

¶54

property. Since, as I have already indicated

¶55

above, this area does not appear to be 'hazardous; any more on account of the large number of buildings already constructed therein, I am certain that the reasons in Ext.P2 cannot find my favour.

¶56

Sd/-

¶57

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGE

WPC 5099/19

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶64

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 26.11.2018 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, YAKKARA VILLAGE.
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED JANUARY 23, 2019 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE OBJECTIONS SUBMITTED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED JANUARY 31, 2009.
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE REVISED MASTER PLAN PREPARED IN THE YEAR 2009.
EXHIBIT P5	A TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS F THE PLOT ALONG WITH THE ADJACENT BUILDINGS.
EXHIBIT P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN GOPALAKRISHNAN VS STATE OF KERALA REPORTED IN 2011 (3) KHC 162 (DB).
EXHIBIT P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED JANUARY 15, 2018 IN WPC NO. 27037/2016.

Vanaja K. v. Palakkad Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vanaja K. v. Palakkad Municipality

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

Lubina S Muhammed Vs the State of Kerala

Karunakaran Vs State of Kerala

Malappuram District Panchayath, Vs State of Kerala

K.S.Biju Vs State of Kerala

T.T.Abdul Rasak Vs Wandoor Grama Panchayath

Pushparaj, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer