Disposed

The Principal, Mary Mount Public School v. Aji Thomas

Kerala HC1 Feb 2021RP/75/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Review Petition No.75 of 2021, the court disposed of the petition clarifying that respondents 8 and 9 must be afforded an opportunity of hearing before removing the alleged encroachment on a public road, satisfying the principle of natural justice.

What did the court decide?

Clarified that respondents 8 and 9 shall be afforded an opportunity of hearing before complying with the direction in the reviewed judgment.

The Principal, Mary Mount Public School Vs Aji Thomas — Kerala HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 12TH MAGHA,1942

¶5

RP.No.75 OF 2021 IN WP(C). 24225/2020

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 24225/2020(C) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER/S:

¶8

THE PRINCIPAL, MARY MOUNT PUBLIC SCHOOL KATTACHIRA P.O., KOTTAYAM, KERALA-686 572.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW SRI.ARUN THOMAS SRI.JENNIS STEPHEN SRI.VIJAY V. PAUL SMT.KARTHIKA MARIA SRI.ANIL SEBASTIAN PULICKEL SMT.DIVYA SARA GEORGE SMT.JAISY ELZA JOE

¶10

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER 1 & 2 & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 7 & 9 & 10:

¶11

1 AJI THOMAS AGED 39 YEARS S/O.P.M.THOMAS, PAMELAYIL HOUSE, COLLECTORATE P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 002.

¶12

2 AJI, AGED 44 YEARS S/O.RAGHAVAN, ALUMTHARAYIL, PANAMPALAM, ARPOOKARA, KOTTAYAM-686 008.

¶13

3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE COLLECTORATE (P.O), KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 002.

¶14

4 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, COLLECTORATE (PO), KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 002.

¶15

5 THE TAHSILDAR (LR), COLLECTORATE (PO), KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, KOTTAYAM, PIN686 002.

¶16

6 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ETTUMANOOR VILLAGE, ETTUMANOOR (PO), KOTTAYAM

¶17

RP.No.75 OF 2021 IN WP(C). 24225/2020

¶18

¶19

DISTRICT, PIN-686 631.

¶20

7 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, ROAD DIVISION, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 001.

¶21

8 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, ROAD DIVISION, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 001.

¶22

9 THE LITTLE WORKERS' OF THE SACRED HEART, MARY MOUNT CONVENT, KATTACHIRA, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 572, REPRESENTED BY ITS MOTHER SUPERIOR.

¶23

10 THE SECRETARY, WINFIELD VILLA OWNERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION, KATTACHIRA P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 572.

¶24

11 MR.TONY THOMAS, VADAKKENULLANGAL VEEDU, FLAT NO.A1, WINFILED APARTMENT, KATTACHIRA P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 572. BY ADVS. SRI. M.V.THAMBAN, SRI.K.J.MANURAJ, GP

¶25

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

RP.No.75 OF 2021 IN WP(C). 24225/2020

¶27

¶28

Review Petition No.75 of 2021

¶29

¶30

W.P.(C) No.24225 of 2020

¶31

O R D E R

¶32

The eighth respondent in the writ petition seeks review of the judgment. Parties and documents are referred to in this order, as they appear in the writ petition.

¶33

2. Ext.P1 is a notice issued by the fifth respondent to the eighth respondent under the Kerala Highway Protection Act for removal of the encroachment allegedly made by them to a public road. Similar notice was issued to the ninth respondent also. Ext.P2 is the notice issued to the ninth respondent. The grievance voiced by the petitioners in the writ petition was that though Exts.P1 and P2 notices were issued as early as on 05.07.2019, further action pursuant to the same has not been taken by the fifth respondent. The writ petition was disposed of at the admission stage itself directing that if further action is not taken pursuant to Exts.P1 and P2 notices, the fifth respondent shall conclude the proceedings initiated against respondents 8 and 9 in accordance with law. The eighth respondent is aggrieved by the said direction and hence this petition for review.

¶34

¶35

RP.No.75 OF 2021 IN WP(C). 24225/2020

¶36

3. The learned counsel for the eighth respondent submits that petitioners are not persons residing in the vicinity of the alleged encroachment and they had no locus standi to institute the writ petition. It was also pointed out by the learned counsel that steps are now being taken to remove the alleged encroachment pursuant to the judgment sought to be reviewed, without affording them an opportunity of hearing.

¶37

4 . The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the materials on record would show that the eighth respondent has admitted the encroachment and therefore, they are not entitled to be heard.

¶38

In so far as the relief sought by the petitioners in the writ petition is in respect of an encroachment made to a public road, according to me, the locus standi of the petitioners need not be examined meticulously as done in other cases.

¶39

It is seen that in terms of the judgment sought to be reviewed, this court did not direct the fifth respondent to issue notice to respondents 8 and 9 while complying with the direction. In a case of this nature, respondents 8 and 9 are certainly entitled to notice before further action is taken pursuant to the notices.

¶40

In the said view of the matter, the review petition is disposed of clarifying that respondents 8 and 9 shall be afforded an

¶41

RP.No.75 OF 2021 IN WP(C). 24225/2020

¶42

¶43

opportunity of hearing before complying with the direction in the judgment.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR

JUDGE

RP.No.75 OF 2021 IN WP(C). 24225/2020

¶49

¶50

APPENDIX

¶51

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶52

ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE REVIEW PETITIONER TO THE MINISTER FOR PUBLIC WORKS DATED 29.09.2020. ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.10.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE REVIEW PETITIONER TO THE MINISTER FOR PUBLIC WORKS. ANNEXURE 3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 07.01.2021 SUBMITTED BEFORE 7TH RESPONDENT.

¶53

//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

The Principal, Mary Mount Public School v. Aji Thomas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Principal, Mary Mount Public School v. Aji Thomas

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

Krishnakumar .S Vs Kadakkavoor Grama Panchayath

National Energy and Waste Management Multipurpose Co-Operative Society(Kerala) Ltd., Vs State of Kerala

K.M.Thilakan Vs the Municipal Corporation of Cochin

Rajesh Kumar, Vs the District Collector

Mohammed Mubarak.K.v Vs New India Assurance Company Ltd.

Gowri Sharad Vs the State of Kerala