Dismissed

Joy C.D. v. the Secretary

Kerala HC14 Jan 2021WP(C)/1040/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order to demolish a latrine, holding that an effective alternative remedy under Section 509 of the Kerala Municipalities Act existed. Coercive steps were stayed for three weeks to allow the petitioner to file the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Coercive steps under the Ext.P6 order kept in abeyance for three weeks pending appeal under Section 509; Writ Petition dismissed.

Joy C.D. Vs the Secretary — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 24TH POUSHA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.1040 OF 2021(D)

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

JOY C.D.,AGED 47 YEARS S/O.LATE DEVASSY, CHENGINIMATTOM (H) EAST CHALAKUDY VILLAGE, CHALAKUDY P.O. THRISSUR 680 307

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.JINISH PAUL

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 THE SECRETARY,CHALAKUDY MUNICIPALITY CHALAKUDY P.O., THRISSUR 680 307

¶11

2 ALPHONSA PAUL,AGED NOT KNOWN, W/O.PAUL E.K. EYYANAN (H), EAST CHALAKUDY VILLAGE CHALAKUDY P.O., THRISSUR 680 307

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

SC: SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No.1040 OF 2021(D)

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P6 order passed under Section 406(3) of the Kerala Municipalities Act, which directs the petitioner to demolish a latrine constructed by him. Although various contentions are raised in the writ petition in its challenge against Ext.P6 order, I am of the view that against Ext.P6 order the petitioner has an effective alternate remedy by way of an appeal under Section 509 of the Kerala Municipalities Act. Accordingly, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to move the appellate authority, the writ petition in its challenge against Ext.P6 order is dismissed.

¶19

Taking note of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he would require some time to move the appellate authority, I direct that coercive steps pursuant to Ext.P6 order shall be kept in abeyance for a period of three weeks so as to enable the petitioner to move the appellate authority, in the meanwhile.

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶22

¶23

WP(C).No.1040 OF 2021(D)

¶24

¶25

APPENDIX

¶26

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶27

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 7.10.19 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF ORDER AND SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 9.1.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 18.1.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO EXT. P2 EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.4.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER 29.9.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER

¶28

EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.11.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER

Joy C.D. v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joy C.D. v. the Secretary

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

Pramod.N Vs the Director General of Police

M/S. Adani Vizhinjam Port Pvt. Ltd., Vs Manickal Grama Panchayat

K.M.Jalal Vs Village Officer

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs Nortel Networks India Pvt. Ltd.

Reghu Ramachandran Vs State of Kerala

Babu.R, Vs the Secretary