Dismissed

Palakkad Charitable Service Trust v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Mar 2020WP(C)/6571/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the Palakkad Municipality to construct a lorry and town bus stand. The court held that since previous acquisition attempts were quashed due to lack of funds, and current information on 2020 fund availability was discretionary, the prayed directions could not be granted.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition dismissing the prayer for construction of the bus stand and lorry stand was dismissed. No direction to borrow loans was granted.

Palakkad Charitable Service Trust Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 21ST PHALGUNA, 1941

¶7

WP(C).No.6571 OF 2020(S)

¶8

PETITIONER:

¶9

PALAKKAD CHARITABLE SERVICE TRUST

¶10

REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE ANUVARUDHEEN, 39/488, HARIKKARA STREET, KOPPAM AMSOM, PALAKKAD-678 001.

¶11

BY ADV. SMT.MAITREYI SACHIDANANDA HEGDE

¶12

RESPONDENT:

¶13

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶14

2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD, PIN-678 001.

¶15

3 PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PALAKKAD-678 001.

¶16

4 SECRETARY, PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY, PALAKKAD-678 001.

¶17

5 CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶18

R1,2& 5 BY SR. GOVERNMRNT PLEDER SRI. SURIN GEORGE IPE R3-4 BY ADV. SHRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN, SC, PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

W.P(C).6571/2020

¶21

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

Dated this the 11^th day of March, 2020

¶24

S. Manikumar, CJ

¶25

On 10.3.2020, when the matter came up for hearing, there was no representation. Hence we directed the Registry to post the writ petition under the caption “for disposal”.

¶26

Today also there is no representation. We propose to consider the case on merits. In the instant public interest litigation, petitioner has sought for a declaration that 3^rd respondent Municipality is duty bound to construct a lorry and town bus stand for Palakkad town in the designated place in Manjakulam area, as sanctioned by the Government. The petitioner has sought for a mandamus directing the 3^rd respondent Municipality to take steps for construction of lorry and town bus stand for Palakkad Town in Manjakulam area. Petitioner has also sought for a mandamus directing the 3^rd respondent municipality to consider utilization of funds from AMRIT scheme for construction of the lorry and town bus stand for Palakkad Town in Manjakulam area, as sanctioned by the Government.

¶27

Short facts leading to writ petition are as under:

¶28

Petitioner is a registered charitable service trust, established for promoting charitable services in various fields in Palakkad District. This

¶29

W.P(C).6571/2020

¶30

¶31

petition is filed aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the 3^rd respondent in constructing a lorry stand and the town bus stand in the designated area for the said purpose. The said project was delayed for decades only because of the vested interests of certain people. The absence of a lorry stand and the town bus stand in Palakkad town, which is a major trade centre in Kerala State, has caused great inconvenience to the public at large, in the city. It is to remedy the heavy traffic and to facilitate smooth transit of various goods that, Palakkad Municipality had decided to construct a lorry stand in the big bazar area, southern portion of Palakkad Town. A town bus stand was also decided to be constructed along with the lorry stand. It was thereafter, a detailed study by the National Transportation Planning and Research Centre, Trivandrum was conducted in the area to construct a lorry stand and town bus stand consisting of 14 acres of land in Ward No.4 of Block No.15 of Palakkad Municipality. The Municipality, after discussing the matter with PWD authorities, earmarked the land Manjakulam for the purpose of lorry and town bus stand construction. Accordingly, after having heard the land owners in the area on 11.3.1997, a proposal was forwarded by the Palakkad Development Authority. Thereafter, the 3^rd respondent decided to acquire 1.8574 acres of land in Survey Nos.837/2b2, 837/2b3, 837/2c, 840/1A, 1B, 2838 and 840 in Ward 4 of block No.15 of Palakkad Municipality as per

¶32

W.P(C).6571/2020

¶33

¶34

Section 17 of Land Acquisition Act. Ext.P2 is the minutes of the meeting held on 16.4.1997. Thereafter, a series of litigation were instituted by land owners challenging the acquisition. The said challenge was successful and the notification was quashed. However, it is pertinent to note that by judgment dated 8.7.2011 in W.P(C)No.30020/2008, the notification for land acquisition was quashed on the submission by the Municipality that it did not have sufficient funds and thus not planning to go ahead with acquisition. The said case was filed by one of the land owners. Even when the notification was quashed, it was made clear that if the municipality avails the fund, there is no hindrance in issuing the acquisition notification again.

¶35

W.P(C).No.23359 of 2011 was filed by the same land owner when his application for building permit was rejected, based on the ground that the said land was set apart for the construction of lorry and town bus stand. By judgment dated 11.10.2011, in the said writ petition, it was clarified that there is no hindrance for the municipality to go ahead with the project when the funds are available. Meanwhile, petitioner herein had also filed a public interest litigation seeking to expedite the project, along with other prayers. This Court dismissed the said petition on the finding that the prayers were untenable.

¶36

The petitioner has further contended that requirement of a lorry stand is more relevant today than ever. Palakkad is having National

¶37

W.P(C).6571/2020

¶38

¶39

highway NH47 and State Highway, Calicut road. It is the common point for several long-distance travels and goods The town also serves as the gateway to Kerala from Tamil Nadu. A lorry stand is an imperative to a city like Palakkad. Petitioner has learnt that now the municipality is having huge funds under the AMRIT Scheme of the Central Government. On previous occasions, the project was dropped only due to the non-availability of the funds. Now that the funds are available, the 3^rd respondent is duty bound to make arrangements to regulate the traffic inside the city, by constructing a suitable lorry stand. At present,a full-fledged town bus stand is also more than necessary. The present bus stand is not sufficient to cater to the needs of the town. The present KSTRC bus stand does not even have a building to operate. It is in a dilapidated stage. Therefore, it is the duty of the Municipality to take steps to construct the town bus stand along with the proposed lorry stand. Another advantage of having a town bus stand at Manjakulam is that, it will lead to construction of a bye-pass road from Melmuri to Manjakulam resulting in reduction of traffic congestion in OttappalamShornur road. The factum of availability of fund is known to the petitioner through an RTI application and Ext.P5 dated 17.4.2018 is the RTI reply. As seen from Ext.P5, the scheme will lapse by 2020. Petitioner has approached the municipal authorities and other leaders several times to include the construction of town bus stand and lorry

¶40

W.P(C).6571/2020

¶41

¶42

stand into the scheme. Till date, no action has been taken in this regard. Hence this writ petition is filed.

¶43

When the matter came up yesterday, by inviting attention of this Court to judgment in W.P(C). No.34164 of 2011 dated 7.2.2012, Mr. Surin George Ipe, leaned Senior Government Pleader submitted that the very same writ petitioner has filed the above said public interest litigation for construction of a lorry stand/bus stand at Manjakulam. By inviting attention of this court to the prayers made in W.P(C). No.34164 of 2011 and the instant public interest litigation W.P(C).No.6571 of 2020 filed by the very same petitioner, Mr. Surin Geoge Ipe, learned Government Pleader submitted that the second prayer made in the instant writ petition and the first prayer made in W.P(C).34164 of 2011 are one and the same.

¶44

Learned Government Pleader further submitted that though earlier, land was acquired for the purpose of construction of lorry/bus stand at Manjakulam, the said notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was quashed by this Court. Taking note of the same, W.P(C). No.34164 of 2011 was dismissed on 7.2.2012 holding that the direction sought for in the said writ petition cannot be granted. The operative portion of the judgment in W.P(C). No.34164 of 2011 dated 7.2.2020 is reproduced:

¶45

“3. Though, the petitioner is aware of the acquisition

¶46

W.P(C).6571/2020

¶47

¶48

proceedings launched at the instance of the 3rd respondent for acquisition of land, the petitioner was not interested to know what exactly was the position as on date. The information passed on to the standing counsel for the third respondent clarifies the position with regard to the alleged bus stand or lorry stand. Notification issued under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act is quashed with the interference of the Court. Now it is a situation, where the third respondent Municipality or the other authorities have to plan how they have to address the requirement of the proposed bus stand. Meanwhile, the building permit sought by the owner of the property whose land came to be notified for acquisition is also rejected by the Municipality concerned and the same is challenged by the owner of the property. At this juncture, the Municipality has to think whether they have to seek for alternative land or proceed with the matter to put up the construction of the bus stand on the land which was already proposed for the said purpose.

¶49

The 7th respondent is represented through a senior counsel, who submits, according to the instructions, the Government directed the third respondent Municipality to raise funds for the construction of the bus stand within a specified period so as to acquire the property in question. However, the Municipality was not able to raise the fund and the Government was not ready to part with any fund for the said proposal. In that situation, the Municipality was not interested to pursue the matter for want of funds. In all probability the petitioner, who is aware of allthese facts, has sought for relief at serial No. 2, suggesting that a direction should be given to the 3^rd respondent and others to borrow loan and construct the bus stand. If the petitioner is really a public spirited person, he must also find the ways to

¶50

W.P(C).6571/2020

¶51

¶52

contribute money and raise funds for the Municipality, but not as stated above, seeking a direction to the 3^rd respondent to enter into a contract for borrowal of loans.

¶53

In the above circumstances, we are of the opinion, there cannot be any direction as sought for in the prayers. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.”

¶54

Information stated to have been obtained under Right to

¶55

Information Act, 2005 to the application dated 28.3.2018 are as follows :

¶56

“Municipality Office Palakkad

¶57

Right to Information E1-13947/18

¶58

NOTICE

¶59

Subject - Palakkad Municipality-Engineering DepartmentRTI Act, 2005-reg.Reference -Your application dated 28.3.2018

¶60

Answers to the questions in the application as per RTI Act are as follows:

¶61

a) AMRUT is the short form of Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation.

¶62

b) AMRUT is the program for development of municipalities/corporations with population greater than 1 lakh.

¶63

c) 5years

¶64

a) Water supply, storm water drainage, septage and sewage, urban transport, green parks & open space.

¶65

(b) Bus terminal and parking facilities can be included.

¶66

a) Yes

¶67

b) 2015-2020

¶68

W.P(C).6571/2020

¶69

¶70

a) Central Government's contribution-50%, State Government's contribution-30%

¶71

b) Found out from CSR, Planfund and incentive

¶72

c) 44546089

¶73

a) 2016-2017, 1,36,800

¶74

b)2017-2018-44409289

¶75

Drinking Water -14 Nos.

¶76

sewage & septage -3 Nos

¶77

Urban transport-20 nos.

¶78

storm water drainage -57 nos.

¶79

Green space-21 nos.

¶80

Estimate has been prepared for the above said sectors as mentioned above. T.S. has been received for 90 estimates till date. Estimates can be probed during office hours. Currently, activity is undergoing in Remadevi Nagar, Kottamaidan, Traffic park and Easwar Graden.

¶81

a) No b) No c) No 8 No

¶82

9 No

¶83

Appellate authority: Executive Engineer, Palakkad Municipality-Engineering Appeal limitation period : 30 days

¶84

Public information officer, Sd/-

¶85

Superintendent Palakkad Municipality.

¶86

Recipient: Dr. M.N. Avarudheen 'Cap' District President West Fort Road, Palakkad-1.

¶87

W.P(C).6571/2020

¶88

¶89

Questions raised in the application dated 28.3.2018 are not reproduced. Though to query No.2, the information given is “2(a) water supply, storm water drainage, septage and sewage, urban transport, green parks & open space. 2(b) Bus terminal and parking facilities can be included”. It is purely the discretion of Palakkad Municipality to decide as to whether construction of a bus and lorry stand is one of the priorities to be taken. Besides the fund position, answer to query No.5 is of the years 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 respectively. Instant writ petition is of the year 2020. Fund position of the year 2020-2021 is not given.

¶90

On the facts and circumstances and following the above decision in W.P(C). No.34164 of 2011 dated 7.2.2020, prayer sought for in this writ petition cannot be granted. Writ petition is dismissed.

¶91

Sd/S. Manikumar, Chief Justice

¶92

Sd/Shaji P. Chaly, Judge

¶93

sou.

¶94

W.P(C).6571/2020

¶95

¶96

APPENDIX

¶97

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶98

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 11.03.1997.

¶99

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE MUNICIPALITY HELD ON 16.04.1997 WITH TRANSLATION. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.07.2011 IN WPC NO.30020/2008. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.10.2011 IN WPC NO.23359 OF 2011. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RTI REPLY DATED 17.04.2018 WITH TRANSLATION.

Palakkad Charitable Service Trust v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Palakkad Charitable Service Trust 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Perinthalmanna Muncipality Vs Haneefa

Roshan Jacob Oommen Vs Union of India

Dr.R.Gopinathan Vs District Collector

Tahsildar, Devikulam Vs Rajan Thomas

Stephen Bernard, Vs State Bank of India

Harish Vasudevan, Vs Union of India