Disposed

Joseph Antony v. Changanassery Municipality

Kerala HC16 Nov 2020WP(C)/18799/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court Writ Petition dealt with alleged encroachment on a public road. The petitioners filed a representation to the Municipality requesting removal of encroachment, which remained unacted upon. The Court directed the Secretuary of the first respondent to consider and take appropriate action on the representation within three months, issuing notice to all concerned parties.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Secretary of the Municipality to consider and take appropriate action on Ext.P9 representation within three months after issuing notice to petitioners and respondents 5-9.

Joseph Antony Vs Changanassery Municipality — RTI and Transparency | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 25TH KARTHIKA, 1942 WP(C).No.18799 OF 2020(Y)

¶5

PETITIONERS:

¶6

1 JOSEPH ANTONY AGED 70 YEARS S/O. N.P. JOSEPH, NEDIAKALAPARAMBIL, P.P. JOSE ROAD, CHANGANASSERY, VAZHAPPALLY EAST VILLAGE,PIN - 686101.

¶7

2 CHERIAN JOSEPH

¶8

AGED 74 YEARS RESIDING AT VATTACHALPADI, THENGARA, PERUPANACHI P.O., CHANGANASSERY, PIN-686101.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.NOUSHAD THOTTATHIL SRI.NOORJI NOUSHAD

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 CHANGANASSERY MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE CHANGANASSERY MUNICIPALITY, CHANGANASSERY P.O., PIN686101.

¶12

2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM-686002.

¶13

3 DISTRICT SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM, PIN-695002.

¶14

**4 ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, CHANGANASSERY TALUK, CHANGANASSERY, PIN-686101. 5 P.M. SAINUDHEEN, SAMEER MANZIL, FATHIMAPURAM P.O., CHANGANASSERY, PIN686102. ADDL JOSEPH THOMAS R6 PADIYATH HOUSE, VADAKKEKKARA, CHANGANASSERY P.O PIN – 686104 ADDL P.K.SUNNY, R7 PUTHOOR HOUSE, ANGADI, CHANGANASSERY PIN-686101

¶15

WP(C).No.18799 OF 2020(Y)

¶16

¶17

**ADDL L.H.MUHAMMED NUSHOOR R8 EKULLATH VEED, KUNNAKAD, PERUNNA P.O, CHANGANASSERY-686102 ADDL SOUDHAMMA AKBAR, R9 PUTHUPARMABIL, THANOOJA MANZIL, FATHIMAPURAM CHANGANASSERY – 686102

¶18

*ADDL R6 TO R9 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2020 DATED 16.11.2020

¶19

BY ADVS.SRI.MADHAVANKUTTY, SC SRI.K.J.MANURAJ,GP

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

WP(C).No.18799 OF 2020(Y)

¶22

¶23

W.P.(C) No.18799 of 2020

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

The grievance of the petitioners in the writ petition concerns the alleged encroachment made by respondents 5 to 9 to the public road referred to in the writ petition. Ext.P9 is the representation preferred by the petitioners as early as in the year 2017, requesting the Secretary of the first respondent Municipality to take appropriate action for removal of the said encroachment. It is alleged by the petitioners that Ext.P9 is not acted upon by the Secretary of the first respondent Municipality. The petitioners, therefore, seek appropriate directions in this regard in the writ petition.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶27

In the nature of the order I propose to pass in this writ petition, no notice need be issued to the respondents.

¶28

In so far as the grievance of the petitioners concerns the inaction on the part of the first respondent Municipality in taking appropriate action on Ext.P9 representation preferred by them, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the Secretary of the first respondent Municipality to consider and take appropriate

¶29

WP(C).No.18799 OF 2020(Y)

¶30

¶31

action on Ext.P9 representation in accordance with law, after issuing notice to the petitioners as also respondents 5 to 9. Ordered accordingly. Needless to say that in the matter of complying with the direction aforesaid, Exts.P3 and P4 reports of the revenue officials shall also be taken note of. The direction aforesaid shall be complied with within three months.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR

JUDGE

WP(C).No.18799 OF 2020(Y)

¶37

¶38

APPENDIX

¶39

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶40

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE SURVEY SETTLEMENT REGISTER SHOWING THE NATURE OF THE LAND COMPRISED IN SURVEY NO.12 OF VAZHAPALLY EAST VILLAGE WHICH WAS USING AS PUBLIC ROAD.
EXHIBIT P2	THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE OBSTRUCTIONS MADE IN FRONT OF THE ROAD AND OTHER ILLEGAL STRUCTURES.
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH PREPARED BY THE TALUK SURVEYOR, CHANGANASSERY TALUK WITH RESPECT TO THE LAND COMPRISED IN SURVEY NO.12 OF VAZHAPPALLY EAST VILLAGE.
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONERS FROM THE 4TH RESPONDENT ON 09/11/2016.
EXHIBIT P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE EVICTION NOTICE NO. E3- 11544/16 DATED 19/09/2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT MUNICIPALITY AGAINST THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE EVICTION NOTICE NO. E3- 11544/16 DATED 29/09/2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT MUNICIPALITY AGAINST THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. DCKTM/2345/17-CO DATED 05/06/2017 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONERS ON 16/08/2017 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONERS ON 22/09/2017 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
//TRUE COPY// PA TO J

Joseph Antony v. Changanassery Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joseph Antony v. Changanassery Municipality

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

Abraham Vs Station Election Commission

Toby Devassy Vs State Election Commission

Johny Mathew Vs State Election Commission

Gopalakrishnan Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Sureshbabu.v.P. Vs Irinjalakkuda Municipality

Faizal K. H. Vs the Corporation of Cochin