Disposed

Moly v. the Secretary, Kollam Corporation

Kerala HC3 Dec 2019WP(C)/8595/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought implementation of an order directing removal of dangerous trees. The court directed the Corporation Council to decide the pending statutory appeal within a month and implemented the removal order thereafter.

What did the court decide?

The Corporation Council directed to decide the pending appeal within one month; Secretary to execute relevant order within one month thereafter.

Moly Vs the Secretary, Kollam Corporation — Kerala HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.8595 OF 2019(Y)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MOLY

¶8

W/O. JOY MARTIN, GREEN VILLA, MANGALAM NAGAR, ARUNOOTTIMANGALAM, MANAGED, KOLLAM - 691 015

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.PRATHEESH.P SMT.S.REKHA KUMARI

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE SECRETARY, KOLLAM CORPORATION CORPORATION BUILDING, KOLLAM - 691 001

¶12

2 THE KOLLAM CORPORATION

¶13

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETATY, CORPORATION BUILDING, KOLLAM - 691 001

¶14

3 SMT. MANI KAVUVOILA VEED, MANGALAM NAGAR, ARUNOOTTIMANGALAM, MANGAD, KOLLAM - 691 001

¶15

R1 BY SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS,SC,KOLLAM CORP R2 BY SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHAN DAS,SC,KOLLAM MPT R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.G.SREEJITH

¶16

M.K.C.DAS -S.C

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No.8595 OF 2019 2

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The petitioner has approached this

¶21

Court seeking that the 1^st respondentSecretary of the Kollam Corporation, be directed to implement Ext.P3, which is an order issued by the said Authority under Section 428 of the Kerala Municipality Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) against the 3^rd respondent, asking her to cut and remove certain offending branches and trees standing in her property, posing danger to the petitioner and her family.

¶22

though Ext.P3 has been issued as early as on 25/10/2018, no action has been taken thereon

¶23

until now. The petitioner, therefore, prays that the 1^st respondent be directed to take immediate action pursuant to Ext.P3 without any further delay.

¶24

WP(C).No.8595 OF 2019 3

¶25

Counsel for the Kollam Corporation - Shri.M.K.Chandramohan Das, submits that it is true that Ext.P3 was issued on 25/10/2018, but that the 3^rd respondent, thereafter, filed an Appeal before the

¶26

Council of the Corporation under Section 591 of the Act and that the Council is yet to take a final decision thereon. He says that

¶27

this Court may, therefore, permit the Council to take a final decision on the

¶28

Appeal, so that the Secretary can thereafter take necessary action based on Ext.P3 as per law.

¶29

Even though the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent initially sought time to file counter pleadings, he submitted that it

¶30

is true that his client has already

¶31

preferred a statutory Appeal against Ext.P3; and thus prayed that unless the same is disposed of, no further action pursuant to

¶32

Ext.P3 may be ordered to be done.

¶33

WP(C).No.8595 OF 2019 4

¶34

When I consider the afore

¶35

submissions, it is without doubt that the

¶36

Secretary of the Corporation has already issued Ext.P3, but that the 3^rd respondent has invoked her statutory remedies against the same. Since the Standing Counsel for the Corporation is unable to tell me as to why the said Appeal is still pending without being disposed of, I deem it appropriate that the said Authority be directed to take up the same and issue final orders on it at the earliest, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the parties.

¶37

Resultantly, I order this writ petition and direct the Council of the respondentCorporation to take up the statutory Appeal filed by the 3^rd respondent against Ext.P3, if it is still pending, and dispose of the same within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment,

¶38

after hearing the petitioner as well as the 3^rd respondent and then issue appropriate

¶39

WP(C).No.8595 OF 2019 5

¶40

orders thereon without any further delay.

¶41

Once the Council takes a decision in terms of these directions, the Secretary will abide by the same and take requisite action, as are found required, under Sections 428 and 430 of the Act, without having to obtain any further orders from this Court, as quickly as is possible but not later than one month after the order of the Council is received by the said Authority.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶44

JUDGE

¶45

MC/3.12.19

¶46

WP(C).No.8595 OF 2019 6

¶47

APPENDIX

¶48

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶49

EXHIBIT P1 THE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, KOLLAM DATED 13/06/2018 EXHIBIT P2 THE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P3 THE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEARING NO.KZ/JH/5466/16 DATED 25/10/2018 EXHIBIT P4 THE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 08/03/2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH RECEIPT RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶50

NIL

¶51

¶52

(TRUE COPY) PA TO JUDGE

Moly v. the Secretary, Kollam Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Moly v. the Secretary, Kollam Corporation

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

C.T.Harilal Vs the Sreekrishnapuram Gramapanchayat

Ponnakkambat Premalatha Vs State of Kerala

Benny Mathew Vs Village Officer, Mulanthuruthy Village

P.Rajappan Nair Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha

Sahajan.M.E Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Shopprix India Private Limited, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer