Remanded

Elsy Grigorious v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Nov 2019WP(C)/5870/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that allegations of unauthorized construction and plastic manufacturing by the 5th respondent constitute a matter for the Grama Panchayath Secretary to consider. Issued directions to the Secretary of the 4th respondent to take up the petitioner's complaint and dispose of it after hearing parties.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Secretary of the 4th respondent-Panchayath to immediately take up Ext.P1, afford an opportunity of being heard to both parties, and issue the resultant order not later than one month from

Elsy Grigorious Vs State of Kerala — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 10TH KARTHIKA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.5870 OF 2019(G)

PETITIONER:

ELSY GRIGORIOUS

AGED 61 YEARS,

W/O.LATE GRIGORIOUS, CHULI VEEDU, CHELAMATTAM, VALLAM, OKKAL.P.O., PERUMBAVOOR PIN-683 550

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.R.DIVAKARAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶13

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM-682 030.

¶14

3 TOWN PLANNER,

¶15

ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KAKKANADU-682 030.

¶16

4 OKKAL GRAMAPANCHAYATH

¶17

OKKAL.P.O., ERNAKULAM-683 550 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶18

5 THAMBAN AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.SREEDHARAN, PARAPPURATHKUDY, PROPRITOR OF AMRITHA PLASTICS, VALLAM-683 550.

¶19

R4 BY ADV. SRI.TONY THOMAS (INCHIPARAMBIL) R5 BY ADV. SRI.T.I.UNNIRAJA R5 BY ADV. SRI.S.G.SREEKANTH R5 BY ADV. SHRI.VISHNU S.

¶20

SMT.POOJA SURENDRAN, GP

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

WP(C).No.5870 OF 2019

¶23

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

The petitioner has approached this Court complaining that the 5^th respondent is now unauthorizedly running a Plastic Manufacturing Unit and that he has made an illegal construction with a height of 50 metres, by using steel and tin roofing, which also encroaches into his property. He says that he, therefore, has preferred Ext.P1 application before the Secretary of the 4^th respondent-Panchayath but that no action has been taken thereon and the 5^th respondent has been allowed to continue with his alleged illegal activities. He says that he was, consequently, constrained to prefer Ext.P5 before the Town Planner, but that the said representation also has not been taken up and disposed of. He thus prays that the Secretary of the 4^th respondent- Panchayath be directed to take up Ext.P1 and dispose of the same at the earliest. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the 5^th respondent submits that the allegations made against his client by the petitioner are completely untrue and that he will be able to convince the Secretary appropriately, as and when any hearing is conducted. The learned counsel, therefore, prays that this writ petition be dismissed.

¶26

WP(C).No.5870 OF 2019

¶27

¶28

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent- Grama Panchayath submits that there is no legal impediment in Ext.P1 being taken up and disposed of and that this will be done after hearing the petitioner as well as the 5^th respondent.

¶29

The learned Government Pleader, Smt.Pooja Surendran, appearing on behalf of the Town Planner, in answer to the above, submitted that jurisdiction of the said respondent cannot be invoked by the petitioner at this stage, since it is for the Secretary of the Panchayath to take a decision in this matter at the first instance. She then says that the Town Planner is willing to abide by any directions to be issued by this Court.

¶30

When I consider the afore submissions, it is without doubt that the petitioner’s allegation against the 5^th respondent is that he has constructed a building and is conducting certain activities therein without applying for and obtaining necessary and requisite licences an d consents. This, c ertainly, is a matter that the Secretary of the Grama Panchayath will have to consider and I, therefore, do not see any reason why he should not be directed to take up Ext.P1 and disposed it of.

¶31

WP(C).No.5870 OF 2019

¶32

¶33

Resultantly, I order this writ petition and direct the Secretary of the 4^th respondent-Panchayath to immediately take up Ext.P1 and consider the same, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as the 5^th respondent; and to thereafter issue the resultant order to both the sides without any further delay, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶34

Sd/-

¶35

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

mpm

¶38

WP(C).No.5870 OF 2019

¶39

¶40

APPENDIX

¶41

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶42

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 08/02/2019. EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE GRAMA PANCHAYATH. EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERUMBAVOOR DATED 11/02/2019. EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERUMBAVOOR. EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE TOWN PLANNER, ERNAKULAM ON 12/02/2019. EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BEFORE THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALUVA RURAL. EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE. EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE COMPOUND WALL OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P10 THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE ILLEGAL CONSTITUTION OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT ON 14.10.2019.

¶43

// TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE

Elsy Grigorious v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Elsy Grigorious 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kuriakose Sabu Vs State of Kerala

Bosemon Joseph Vs Pala Muncipality

M.M. Varghese Vs the Mannarkad Municipality

Kamaludheen Juma Masjid and Madrassa, Vs the Secretary , Kattakambal Grama Panchayath

Chekkini Vs the State of Kerala

Zachariah P.John Vs the Secretary, Thazhakkara Grama Panchayat