Disposed

Mountain View Properties v. Pala Municipality

Kerala HC20 Mar 2019WP(C)/6821/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged communications from the Municipal Council regarding a water connection and road cutting application. The Court directed the respondents to ensure a decision is taken on pending representations expeditiously within three weeks without expressing an opinion on the merits.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents 1 and 2 to take a decision on Exts.P9 and P10 by the Municipal Council within three weeks.

Mountain View Properties Vs Pala Municipality — 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

WEDNESDAY,THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 29TH PHALGUNA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 6821 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

MOUNTAIN VIEW PROPERTIES AND DEVELOPERS LIMITED, SKYLINE HOUSE, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI- 28, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.V. ABDUL AZEEZ.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.P.P.RAMACHANDRAN SRI.R.JAIKRISHNA

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 PALA MUNICIPALITY

¶11

PALA 686 575, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶12

2 TEH SECRETARY, PALA MUNICIPALITY, PALA 686 575.

¶13

3 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JAL BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶14

4 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, P.H. DIVISION, KOTTAYAM 686 575.

¶15

5 ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WSP SUB DIVISION, PALA 686 575.

¶16

6 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, KERALA STATE TRANSPORT DIVISION, PONKUNNAM, KANJIRAPPALLY 686 507.

¶17

BY ADVS. SRI.SUJITH MATHEW JOSE, SC, PALA MUNICIPALITY SRI.P.BENJAMIN PAUL, SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY

¶18

BY SRI.MANURAJ K.J, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C).No. 6821 of 2019

¶21

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The petitioner, who had constructed an apartment complex in 107.690 cents of land comprised in Re.Sy.No.1 in Block No.161 of Meenachal Village in Meenachal Taluk, which has already been issued with Ext.P1 occupancy certificate dated 30.08.2017 by the 2^nd respondent, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Exts.P8 and P8(a) communications of the 2^nd respondent as well as the decision of the Municipal Council dated 15.05.2018, as mentioned in those communications. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 to accord permission for road cutting along the side of Cathedral Church Road, as sought by the petitioner on 07.03.2018, as well as through Ext.P10 representation, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.

¶24

On 07.03.2019, when this writ petition came up

¶25

WP(C).No. 6821 of 2019

¶26

¶27

for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality and also the learned Standing Counsel for Water Authority were directed to file statements within ten days.

¶28

3. A statement has been filed by respondents 1 and 2. Paragraphs 3 to 6 of the said statement read thus;

¶29

“3. By Ext.P6, the Municipality directed the petitioner to give an affidavit specifying that by what period, the road can be restored to the original form and also to produce the recommendation of the concerned Ward Councilor.

¶30

4. The Ward Councilor suggested that in view of the narrow road and heavy traffic, if the pipe line is drawn through the side of the municipal drain, the side road cutting up to a length of 100 meters can be avoided. Therefore, the petitioner submitted another application dated 03/04/2018, requesting permission for road cutting in the newly proposed manner, along with Ext P7 affidavit affirming that the road can be restored within 12 days of commencement of work and Ext P7(a) recommendation of the concerned Ward Councilor.

¶31

5. Accordingly, the petitioner's application along with supporting documents was placed before the Municipal Council for sanction. However, the Municipal Council by the decision dated 15/05/2018

¶32

WP(C).No. 6821 of 2019

¶33

¶34

observed that there is serious water scarcity in the nearby areas, namely; the 12^th Mile and Kaanadiurumbu places, and if water connection is given to the apartment complex consisting of about 70 families, it will cause serious water scarcity in the area; and therefore, the Council resolved to request the Water Authority not to sanction any water connection. It is submitted that by said decision the Municipal Council has not neither rejected nor accorded sanction on the petitioner's application. The decision of the Municipal Council was intimated to the Water Authority by Ext P8 and to the petitioner by Ext P8(a).

¶35

6. Thereafter, this respondent received Ext.P9 communication dated 15/09/2018 from the 5^th respondent, stating that there will not be any water scarcity, as only one domestic connection is given to the petitioner's apartments. This Ext P9 communication along with Ext P10 and recommendation is again placed before the Municipal Council for sanction. The same is pending consideration before the Municipal Council.”

¶36

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the

¶37

learned Standing Counsel for the 1^st respondent Municipality representing respondents 1 and 2, the learned Standing Counsel for the Water Authority representing respondents 3 to 5 and also the learned

¶38

WP(C).No. 6821 of 2019

¶39

¶40

Government Pleader appearing for the 6^th respondent.

¶41

During the course of arguments, after making reference to the statement filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2, the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality would point out that by Ext.P8, the Municipal Council neither rejected nor accorded sanction on the petitioner's application and the said decision taken by the Municipality on 15.05.2018 was communicated to the Water Authority by Ext.P8 and to the petitioner by Ext.P8(a). Thereafter, the 2^nd respondent received Ext.P9 communication dated 15.09.2018 of the 5^th respondent, wherein it has been stated that there will not be any water scarcity, as only one domestic connection is given to the petitioner's apartments. Ext.P9 communication along with Ext.P10 and the recommendation is again placed before the Municipal Council for sanction and the same is pending consideration before the Municipal Council.

¶42

The learned Standing Counsel for the Water

¶43

WP(C).No. 6821 of 2019

¶44

¶45

Authority, on instructions, would submit that the 5^th respondent Assistant Executive Engineer still maintains the stand in Ext.P9.

¶46

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since the matter is now pending consideration before the Municipal Council, respondents 1 and 2 may be directed to take an appropriate decision in the matter, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.

¶47

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides and taking note of the fact that Ext.P9 communication of the 5^th respondent Assistant Executive Engineer along with Ext.P10 is now pending consideration before the Municipal Council for sanction, this writ petition is disposed of by directing respondents 1 and 2 to take necessary steps to ensure that a decision on Exts.P9 and P10, based on the recommendation contained therein, is taken by the Municipal Council, as expeditiously as possible, at any

¶48

WP(C).No. 6821 of 2019

¶49

¶50

rate, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶51

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything as to the merits of the claim made by the petitioner and it is for the Municipal Council to take an appropriate decision, strictly in accordance with law, taking into consideration the relevant facts and circumstances.

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶54

AV/20/3

¶55

WP(C).No. 6821 of 2019

¶56

¶57

APPENDIX

¶58

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶59

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 30.8.2017.
EXHIBIT P1 A	TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH PRODUCED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. DATED NIL
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. DATED 21.2.2018.
EXHIBIT P2 A	TRUE COPY OF THE ENDORSEMENT OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER FOR ESTIMATED COST DATED NIL
EXHIBIT P2 B	TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT EVIDENCING REMITTANCE OF THE ESTIMATED CHARGE FOR WATER CONNECTION DATED 9.3.2018.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION AND THE ABSTRACT OF THE WATER CONNECTION LINE BEING PROVIDED TO THE PETITIONERS PREMISES DATED 17.1.2018.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED NIL.
EXHIBIT P4 A	TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH APPENDED TO EXT P4 DATED NIL.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE PERMISSION FOR ROAD CUTTING ACCORDED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT. DATED 23.6.2018
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER GIVEN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 24.3.2018.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVITS GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 17.4.2018.
EXHIBIT P7 A	TRUE COPY OF THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE WARD COUNCILOR.DATED 27.4.2018

¶60

WP(C).No. 6821 of 2019

¶61

¶62

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT. DATED 24.5.2018. EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 31.5.2018. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER GIVEN BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. DATED 15.9.2018. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 2.8.2018.

Mountain View Properties v. Pala Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mountain View Properties v. Pala 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

Suresh, Vs the District Environment Impact Authority

Radha Vs the New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Madhu.K Vs the Secretary

Gafoor, Vs Joint Regional Transport Officer

C.H.Amina Vs M.Vijayan

Zeenath Basheer Vs Vengola Grama Panchayat