Allowed

T.Sreedharan v. M.P.Sivadasan

Kerala HC16 Jun 2020WP(C)/25612/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court set aside an order of the Permanent Lok Adalath, Kozhikode, on the grounds of personal bias and violation of natural justice. The court directed the Adalath to reconsider the maintainability of an original petition afresh.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P12 order was set aside, and the Permanent Lok Adalath, Kozhikode was directed to consider the issue of maintainability afresh within six weeks.

T.Sreedharan Vs M.P.Sivadasan — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 26TH JYAISHTA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.25612 OF 2013(B)

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

T.SREEDHARAN AMBADY, HOUSE NO.11/30(33/6445), CHEVAYUR VILLAGE, CHEVAYUR AMSOM, CHEVAYUR PO, KOZHIKODE

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.K.M.FIROZ SRI.S.KANNAN SMT.M.SHAJNA

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 M.P.SIVADASAN AGED 65 YEARS S/O.PONNITTY,CHEVAYUR VILLAGE, CHEVAYUR AMSOM, MAGHAM VEEDU, NO.11/2(33/6457 B) CHEVAYUR PO, PIN 673 017, KOZHIKODE

¶11

2 SITHARA D/O.SREEDHARAN,AMBADY,HOUSE CHEVAYUR VILLAGE , CHEVAYUR AMSOM, CHEVAYUR PO, KOZHIKODE 673 017.

¶12

3 MAJOR KRISHNADAS DEVABHAG, IRINGADANPALLY ROAD, CHEVAYUR, KOZHIKODE 673 017

¶13

4 N.CHANDU PRESIDENT, SAMANWAYAM RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION, REG.NO.S.367/10.IRINGADAN PALLY, 12/2068, PO CHEVAYUR 673 017,RESIDING AT 'SOURPANIKA'HOUSE, 33/6444(11/32) CHEVAYUR VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE

¶14

5 THE KOZHIKODE CORPORATION BEACH POST OFFICE, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 673 001.

¶15

W.P.(C) No.25612 of 2013

¶16

¶17

6 THE PERMANENT LOK ADALATH (FOR PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICES), METRO BUILDING, CHEROOTTY ROAD, KOZHIKODE REPRESENTED BY IOTS REGISTRAR 673 001.

¶18

7 THE PERMANENT LOK ADALATH (FOR PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICES),GROUND FLOOR, OLD HIGH COURT BUILDING, ERNAKULAM 31 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR 682 031.

¶19

8 THE KERALA STATE LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY NIYAMA SAHAYA BHAVAN, HIGH COURT COMPOUND , ERNAKULAM 682 031.

¶20

R1 BY ADV. SMT.SHERLY THOMAS R4 BY ADV. SMT.M.CHANDRALEKHA R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH R6-R8 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶21

OTHER PRESENT:

¶22

GP RASHMI K.M.

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.06.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

W.P.(C) No.25612 of 2013

¶25

¶26

Dated this the 16^th day of June, 2020

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P12 order

¶29

of the Permanent Lok Adalath, Kozhikode, by which the issue of maintainability of O.P.No.6 of 2013 filed by the first respondent was decided. O.P.No.6 of 2013 is filed alleging that the petitioner had obstructed the flow of water through a channel, which according to the petitioner, is a private channel and according to the first respondent, a public drainage.

¶30

2. The primary contention urged by the

¶31

learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the fourth respondent had personal interest in the matter, he being a resident of the area through which the disputed channel passes and had, in his capacity as the President of the residents Association, had filed Exts.P3 and P4 before the

¶32

W.P.(C) No.25612 of 2013

¶33

¶34

revenue authorities seeking reliefs against the petitioner. It is therefore contended that

¶35

Ext.P12 order of the Permanent Lok Adalath, with the 4^th respondent as one of its members, is liable to be set aside, being vitiated by the

¶36

personal bias. The learned Counsel further contends that while deciding the question of maintainability, the Permanent Lok Adalath had decided the issue on merits also, which is impermissible.

¶37

3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the fourth respondent denying the

¶38

allegation of bias, but admitting to have filed a complaint before the Revenue Divisional Officer. According to the fourth respondent, the complaint was with regard to the illegal filling of 18.5 cents of paddy land comprised in a different survey number than that of the petitioner. In the

¶39

counter affidavit, there is allegation to the

¶40

W.P.(C) No.25612 of 2013

¶41

¶42

effect that the petitioner had constructed a compound wall having height of 3 metres, with a

¶43

gate at a height of one metre from the ground level, resulting in water logging in the area. The averments in the counter affidavit amply demonstrate the fourth respondent's interest in the subject matter. The learned Counsel for the respondents submit that the fourth respondent is no longer a member of the Permanent Lok Adalath, Kozhikode.

¶44

4. I find substance in the contention urged on behalf by the petitioner regarding the sustainability of Ext.P12. Exts.P3 and P4, as well as the averments in the counter affidavit filed by the fourth respondent, is suggestive of his interest in the subject matter involved in O.P.No.6 of 2013. In such circumstnaces, it was

¶45

not proper for the fourth respondent to have decided the question of maintainability of that

¶46

W.P.(C) No.25612 of 2013

¶47

¶48

original petition. The participation of the fourth respondent in the decision making process

¶49

as a member of the Permanent Lok Adalath has definitely vitiated Ext.P12 order. Further, it is only proper to refrain from entering any finding on merits.

¶50

In the result, Ext.P12 is set aside and the Permanent Lok Adalath, Kozhikode is directed to consider the issue of maintainability raised by the petitioner afresh, after giving notice to all parties. Since the matter has been pending from 2013 onwards, the Permanent Lok Adalath shall attempt to decide the question of maintainability within an outer limit of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶51

SD/V.G.ARUN JUDGE

¶52

Scl/16.06

¶53

W.P.(C) No.25612 of 2013

¶54

¶55

APPENDIX

¶56

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶57

EXHIBIT P1 EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION NO.6/2013 DATED 14/2/2013 ON THE FILES OF PERMANENT LOK ADALATH FOR PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICES, KOZHIKODE

¶58

EXHIBIT P2 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF STATEMENT DATED 4/6/2013 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT

¶59

EXHIBIT P3 EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 28/.2/2013 SUBMITTED BY SAMANWAYAM RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CONTAINING THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 28/2/2013 MADE BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR TO THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

¶60

EXHIBIT P4 EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 28/2/2013 SUBMITTED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE

¶61

EXHIBIT P5 EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT DATED 9/7/2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOZHIKODE

¶62

EXHIBIT P6 EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT DATED 5/3/2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER INTHE ORIGINAL PETITION NO.6/2013 ON THE FILES OF PERMANENT LOK ADALATH FOR PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICES, KOZHIKODE

¶63

EXHIBIT P7 EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF THE REJOINDER SUBMITTED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT IN THE ORIGINAL PETITION NO.6/2013 ON THE FILES OF PERMANENT LOK ADALATH FOR

¶64

W.P.(C) No.25612 of 2013

¶65

¶66

PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICES, KOZHIKODE EXHIBIT P8 EXHIBIT P8 COPY OF THE COUNTER DATED 5/3/2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER INTHE APPLICATION IN OROGINAL PETITION NO.6/2013 ON THE FILES OF PERMANENT LOK ADALATH FOR PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICES, KOZHIKODE EXHIBIT P9 EXHIBIT P9 COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 25/4/2013 SUBMITTED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT IN ORIGINAL PETITION NO.6/2013 ON THE FILES OF PERMANENT LOK ADALATH FOR PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICES, KOZHIKODE EXHIBIT P10 EXHIBIT P10 COPOY OF THE COUNTER DATED 4/7/2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN THE IMPLEADING APPLICATION IN ORIGINAL PETITION NO.6/2013 ON THE FILES OF THE PERMANENT LOK ADALATH FOR PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICES, KOZHIKODE EXHIBIT P11 EXHIBIT P11 COPY OF PETITION DATED 26/3/2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN THE ORIGINAL PETITION NO.6/2013 ON THE FILES OF PERMANENT LOK ADALATH FOR PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICES, KOZHIKODE PRAYING TO CONSIDER MAINTAINABILITY AS A PRELIMINARY ISSUE EXHIBIT P12 EXHIBIT P12 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12/9/2013 PASSED IN ORIGINAL PETITION NO. 6/2013 ON THE FILES OF PERMANENT LOK ADALATH FOR PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICES, KOZHIKODE

T.Sreedharan v. M.P.Sivadasan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Sreedharan v. M.P.Sivadasan

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

M.v.Sreejeshkumar Vs Sri.E.S.Unnikrishnan

A.H.Jabbar & 2 Others Vs Government of Kerala and 3 Others

Kolambil Hamza Haji Vs State of Kerala

Bijoy.P., Vs Bank of Baroda

K.Ashraf Vs Union of India

Augustine Joseph Vs State of Kerala