Disposed

Anirudhan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Nov 2021WP(C)/10551/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Panchayat to reconvert rooms used for a hotel into waiting sheds to restore the bus-bay's purpose, sanctioned for public use on reclaimed land. An office quash and mandamus were prioritized to balance hotel use and bus access.

What did the court decide?

The Panchayat to allot rooms 2 and 3 to Kudumbasree while converting room 4 and part of room 5 into a bus waiting shed; 5th respondent to direct buses to use the bay; Respondents to pay Commissioner's

Anirudhan Vs State of Kerala — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE rllcii couRT oF I(ERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V. KUNHIKRISHl\lAI\l

¶4

TUESDAy, THE 23ne DAy oF «ovEMBER 2®21 / 2ve ACRArlAYAWA,

¶5

1943

¶6

WP(CI NO. 1®5510F 202®

¶7

PETITIONER/S :

¶8

ANIRUDHAN, AGED 60 YEARS

¶9

S/0. VELAYUDHAN, M00THERI KIZHAKETHIL HOUSE,

¶10

ENATHU P 0 AND VILLAGE, AD00R TALUK,

¶11

PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT -691526.

¶12

N. MURALEEDHARAN, AGED 77 YEARS

¶13

S/0.V. NARAYANAN, PAZHAV00R KADAYIL VEEDU,

¶14

ENATHU P 0 AND VILLAGE, AD00R TALUK,

¶15

PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT -691526.

BY ADVS,

MANU RAMACHANDRAN

SHRI.SAMEER M NAIR

REsroNDENT/s :

STATE 0F KERALA

REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY T0 GOVERNMENT,

¶22

DEPARTMENT 0F LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT

¶23

INSTITUTIONS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TH I RUVANANTHAPURAM -695001,

¶24

DIRECTOR 0F PANCHAYAT,

¶25

DIRECTORATE 0F PANCHAYAT,

¶26

PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM P 0,

¶27

THI RUVANANTHAPURAM -695033 .

¶28

DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

¶29

COLLECTORATE, PATHANAMTHITTA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689645.

¶30

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR 0F PANCHAYAT

¶31

OFFICE 0F DEPUTY DIRECTOR PANCHAYAT, PATHANAMTH ITTA -689645 .

¶32

-2-

¶33

W.P.(C). No. 10551 Of 2020

¶34

THE TALUK TRAFFIC REGULATORY COMMITTEE, TALUK 0F AD00R, REPRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER, AD00R, PATHANAMTHITTA -691523.

¶35

KERLA ROAD SAFETY AUTHORITY

¶36

TRANS TOWERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695014,

¶37

REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER,

¶38

DISTRICT ROAD SAFETY COUNCIL

¶39

PATHANAMTHITTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA -689645.

¶40

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

¶41

KERALA STATE TRANSPORT PROJECT, KSTP DIVISION OFFICE, KOTTARAKARA, KERALA691566 .

¶42

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

¶43

PWD (ROADS)DIVISION, PATHANAMTHITTA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689645

¶44

10 ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

¶45

PWD(ROADS) SUB DIVISION, AD00R, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, AD00R, PATHANAMTHITTA-691523.

¶46

11 THE EZHAMKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH EZHAMKULAM, AD00R TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA691554, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,

¶47

( EMAIL -Ezl+AMKULAMGP@GMAIL , COM AND

¶48

KLPTEZHGP . LSGD@KERALA . GOV . IN )

¶49

12 THE SECRETARY

¶50

EZHAMKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, EZHAMULAM, AD00R TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA -691554. ( EMAIL -EZHAMKULAMGpeeMAIL. con AND

¶51

KLPTEZHGP . LSGD@KERALA . GOV . IN )

¶52

13 DISTRICT PANCHAYAT 0F PATHANAMTHITTA,

¶53

OFFICE 0F DISTRICT PANCHAYATH, COLLECTORATE, COLLECTORATE ROAD, PATHANAMTHITTA-689645. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,

¶54

( EMAI L -DPPTTA@GMAI L . COM )

¶55

-3-

¶56

W.P.(C). No. 10551 Of 2020

¶57

BY ADVS. MERSEENA VINCENT GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI . K . SHAJ SHRI.JOSEPH GEORGE, SC, DISTRICT PANCHAYATH, PATHANAMTHITTA S . P . ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY N , SANTHA PETER JOSE CHRIST0 S . A . ANAN D K . N . REMYA L ,. ANNAP00RNA VISHNU V,K, ABHIRAMI K. UDAY KURUVILLA SABU CHRISTY

¶58

OTHER PRESENT:

¶59

SMT.RASHMI.K.M, SR,GP

¶60

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION 0N 23.11,2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶61

-4-

¶62

W.P.(C). No. 10551 of 2020

¶63

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

¶64

wi-.-i;T{-6j-ri-a-:i-6-5-5-i--6f~-2-6-2-6

¶65

Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2021

¶66

JUDGRENT

¶67

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers:

¶68

"1) To call for records leading to the standing of Kudumbasree Hotel by altering the bus-bay building at Enathii and qiiash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari;

¶69

1. To issue a writ of mandamus, or any appropriate writ or direction directing the respondents 1 to 13 to take appropriate action in ensuring the usage of bus-bay at Enathu by completely shifting the present bus stop operating by the side of the M.C road in Enathu between bridge over Kallada river and over-bridge of Mannadi-Emthu road to the bus-bay;

¶70

1. To issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ or direction, directing the respondents 1 to 13 to allow only activities which are beneficial to the enjoyment of bus-bay at Enathu in the building and premises of bus-bay at Enathu;

¶71

-5-

¶72

W.P.(C). No. 10551 Of 2020

¶73

Such other Writ, Orders or Directions deem fit on facts and in the interest of Justice.

¶74

The petitioners are native of Enathu village, Adoor Taluk, Pathanamthitta District. They are public spirited persons. They are concerned and aggrieved by the act of Ezhamkulam Grama Panchayat in converting Bus-bay constructed at Enathu by the side of MC road for a different purpose even when the public transport buses including KSRTC plying through MC road on both directions continues to be stopped near bridge across Kallada river posing danger in a

¶75

Highway road calTying fast traffic. According to the petitioners, the stoppage and parking of transport buses at the stop point at Enathu on both sides of the MC road between bridge over Kallada river and over-bridge of Mannadi-Enathu road are in violation of Regulation 3 and 22 of the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations, 2017. The Bus-bay at Enathu

¶76

by the side of MC road was constructed in the land suITendered

¶77

by the private persons exclusively for the said purpose which is

¶78

-6-

¶79

W.P.(C). No. 10551 of 2020

¶80

evident by Exts.Pl and P2. The surrendered land, which was paddy land, was allowed to be reclaimed and do construction activities by the State Level Committee ulider Paddy Land Act since the same was for public purpose like Bus-bay. Ext.P3 is the order. A total amount of Rs.47.7 lakhs was spend for the construction of the Bus-bay apart from the funds allocated by the Safe Corridor Work Scheme of MC road by the Keala State Thansport Project for construction of retaining walls evident by Ext.P4. It is the case of the petitioners that respondents 11 and 12 by disregarding the purpose of utilization of huge amount for

¶81

the public purpose has altered large portion of the Bus-bay building into a Kudumbasree hotel evident by Ext.P7 photographs. According to the petitioners, it is a conscious attempt from the part of the Panchayat in altering the usage of the building and undermining the larger purpose of which the same was built. The paddy land on which the Bus-bay was constructed was allowed to be reclaimed as per Ext.P3 only

¶82

-7-

¶83

W.P.(C). No. 10551 of 2020

¶84

because the same is for public purpose. The petitioners aggrieved because the Bus-bay building is now completely used by the Kudumbasree hotel authorities. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.

¶85

When this writ petition came up for consideration, this Court appointed Adv. Smt.Merseena Vincent as Advocate Commissioner to find out the correctness of the facts narrated in certain paragraphs of the counter affidavit filed by respondents 11 and 12. A detailed report is filed by the Advocate Commissioner with sketch and photographs.

¶86

Heard the leaned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for the official respondents and also the leaned counsel for the District Panchayat.

¶87

The grievance of the petitioners is that the entire bus-bay constructed by the Panchayat is now used by the Kudumbasree Hotel. The further grievance of the petitioner is

¶88

that the transport buses are not entering into the bus-bay and

¶89

-8-

¶90

W.P.(C). No. 10551 Of 2020

¶91

now the purpose for which the land surrendered is lost and the same is now used for the hotel business.

¶92

I perused the Commission report. Annexure Al is the rough sketch produced by the Advocate Commissioner along with the report. In the report, there are five rooms and a toilet. As per the Commission report, room No.1 to 4 plus working area is now used for the hotel business by the Kudumbasree. Of course, this is ob].ected by the counsel for the Panchayat. I perused the photographs produced by the

¶93

Commissioner along with the report. I think the stand of the Commissioner is justified in the light of the photographs produced along with the report. Moreover, there is some force in the argulnents of the petitioners that the purpose for which the Bus-bay was constructed is now lost by converting the entire building for the purpose of hotel business by Kudumbasree. When the matter was heard in length, this Court

¶94

suggested to the parties that whether they will be satisfied if

¶95

-9-

¶96

W.P.(C). No. 10551 of 2020

¶97

room Nos.2 and 3 are allotted for Kudumbasree Hotel and room

¶98

Nos.4 and 5 are earmal'ked for Bus waiting shed. The counsel

¶99

for the petitioners readily accepted the same. That shows the spirit of the petitioners. They only want to see that, the purpose for which the building was constructed shall not lost by starting the Kudumbasree Hotel. According to me, room Nos.2 and 3 can be used for the pulpose of Kudumbasree hotel and the

¶100

Panchayat will do the needful to see that room Nos.4 and 5 are exclusively earmarked for the Bus waiting shed. After going through the photographs produced by the Commissioner, it is clear that, room No.4 is now used for the purpose of hotel

¶101

business. The Panchayat should take appropriate steps to see that room No.4 is converted to a waiting shed and room No.3, which is the existing waiting shed is converted to a room. The counsel for the Panchayat also submitted that in connection with the `Take a Break policy' of the Government, the

¶102

Panchayat made certain construction and the Panchayat may be

¶103

-10-

¶104

W.P.(C). No. 10551 of 2020

¶105

allowed to do the same, in accordance to law. The Panchayat

¶106

can do the needful to continue the construction, but I make it

¶107

clear that the construction should not obstruct anyway the passage of bus through the bus-bay.

¶108

There is a grievance to the petitioners that buses are not entering into the Bus-bay. The counsel for the Panchayat takes me through Ext.R110.) resolution passed by the Panchayat, in which it is decided to request the transport authorities including the District Collector, to give direction to enter all the buses

¶109

passing through this area through the bus-bay. According to me, the authority concerned will do the needful based on the resolution passed by the Panchayat. Such a direction also can

¶110

be issued in this writ petition. There can be a direction to the 5th respondent also to do the needful based on the resolution passed

¶111

by the Panchayat. Moreover the Advocate Commissioner is

¶112

entitled some more amount as remuneration. The preliminary

¶113

remuneration was paid by the petitioners. They were pursuing

¶114

-11-

¶115

W.P.(C). No. 10551 of 2020

¶116

this writ petition as public spirited persons to protect a Bus-bay

¶117

which was constructed using the public fund. According to me,

¶118

the balance remuneration should be paid by the Panchayath. An amount of Rs.30,000/- was paid as preliminary remuneration for the Advocate Commissioner. The Advocate Commissioner has done a very good job and I think she is entitled for an additional remuneration of Rs.25,000/-. There can be a direction to respondents 4, 11 and 12 to do the needful to pay the same.

¶119

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of in the following manner:

¶120

Room Nos.2 and 3 marked in Annexure Al rough sketch produced along with the Commission report will be allotted to the Kudumbasree hotel by the Panchayat.

¶121

The Panchayat will do the needful to see that room No.4 is converted to a waiting shed and room Nos.4 and 5 are arranged for the bus waiting shed.

¶122

-12-

¶123

W.P.(C). No. 10551 of 2020

¶124

There will be a direction to the 5th respondent to do the needful based on Ext.RllG) resolution, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶125

Respondents 4, 11 and 12 will do the needful to pay an additional remuneration of Rs.25,000/- to the Advocate Commissioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Necessary sanction will be given to the Panchayat by the 4th respondent to disburse the amount to the Commissioner.

¶126

Annexure Al rough sketch produced in the

¶127

Commission report will form part of this judgment.

¶128

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶129

das

¶130

-13-

¶131

W.P.(C). No. 10551 of 2020

¶132

APPEI\lDIX OF WP/Cl 10551/2®20

¶133

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶134

EXHIBIT P1	THE TRUE COPY 0F THE AGREEMENT 0F RELINQUISHMENT DATED 07.12,2009 IN FAVOUR 0F GRAMA PANCHAYAT 0F EZHAMKULAM .
EXHIBIT P2	THE TRUE COPY 0F THE PROCEEDINGS NO. 84-93/2020 DATED 15.01.2®10 0F RDO, AD00R IN ACCEPTING THE RELINQUISHMENT 0F LAND FOR BUS-BAY AT ENATHU.
EXHIBIT P3	THE TRUE COPY 0F THE ORDER DATED GO(MS) NO.177/2012/AGRICULTURE DATED 23.07.2012 0F STATE LEVEL COMMITTEE, UNDER PADDY AND WETLAND ACT.
EXHIBIT P4	THE TRUE COPY 0F THE LETTER NO . PWD/LSTP/KSTP/PMT/149/02/KSTP -I DATED 07,12.2013 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER, KSTP PROJECT T0 GRAMA PANACHAYAT 0F EZHAMKULAM.
EXHIBIT P5	THE TRUE COPY 0F THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING INCOMPLETE BUS-BAY AT ANATHU.
EXHIBIT P6	THE PHOTOGRAPH 0F INAUGURATION 0F BUS- BAY AT ENATHU.
EXHIBIT P7	THE TRUE COPY 0F THE PHOTOGRAPHS 0F THE INAUGURATION AND WORKING 0F KUDUMBASREE HOTEL ALTERING BUS-BAY BUILDING AT ENATHU
EXHIBIT P8	THE TRUE COPY 0F THE REPRESENTATION NIL DATED GIVEN BY THE NATIVES 0F ENATHU INCLUDING THE PETITIONERS ALONG WITH POSTAL RECEIPTS.
EXHIBIT P9	THE TRUE COPY 0F THE INFORMATION GATHERED UNDER RTI FROM THE OFFICE 0F EXEctJTIVE ENGINEER, KSTP DATED 24/06/2020 .
EXHIBIT Plo	TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS 0F THE BUS BAY BUILDING WHILE IT WAS BEING CONSTRUCTED AND WHEN IT WAS FINISHED

¶135

-14-

¶136

W.P.(C). No. 10551 Of 2020

¶137

EXHIBIT	Pll	TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS 0F THE BUS BAY BUILDING AS 0N 06.02.2021
RESPOND	ENT EXHI	BITS
EXHIBIT	R8(a)	TRUE COPY 0F THE DESIGN DRAWING
EXHIBIT	Rll(N)	THE TRUE COPY OF NOTIFICATION FOR AUCTI0NDATD 20-9-2017 ISSUED BY THE SECRETRY, EZHAMKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT
EXHIBIT	Rll(0)	THE TRUE COPY 0F AGREEMENT BETWEEN LINI BINOY AND THE SECRETARY, EZHAMAKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT
EXHIBIT	Rll(P)	THE TRUE COPY 0F NOTIFICATION FOR AUCTION DATED 1.3.2019 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, EHAMKULAM GRAMA PANCHATAT
EXHIBIT	Rll(Q)	THE TRUE COPY 0F CIRCULAR (ORDINARY) N01401/2020/LSGD DATED 27.7.2020 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT
EXHIBIT	Rll(R)	THE TRUE COPY 0F RESOLUTION N0 1(8) DATED 20.8.2020 0F EZHAMKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH
EXHIBIT	Rll(S)	THE TRUE COPY 0F LETTER N0 1032/SWM/D.S.M/P/T/A-1 DATED 25.1.2021 T0 SECRETARIES 0F ALL LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS
EXHIBIT	Rll(T)	THE TRUE COPY 0F THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT FORM 0F HANDING OVER 0F THE SITE T0 THE CONTRACTOR
EXHIBIT	Rll(U)	THE TRUE COPY 0F CONTRACT ENTERED INT 0R BY THE PANCHAYATH THROUGH ITS LSGD ENGINEER AND THE CONTRACTOR
EXHIBIT	Rll(V)	PHOTOGRAPH 0F ROOM NO.4 0F THE BUS-BAY
EXHIBIT	Rll(W)	PHOTOGRAPH 0F THE NEW CONSTRUCTIONS IN THE BUS-BAY AS PART OF THE TAKE A BREAK POLICY 0F THE GOVERNMENT

¶138

-15-

¶139

W.P.(C). No. 10551 c>f 2020

¶140

ANNEXURE AI ROUGH SKETCH 0F THE BUS-BAY

¶141

ANNEXURE A2 T0 A8 THE PHOTO 0F THE BUS-BAY TAKEN BY THE COMMISSION AT THE TIME 0F INSPECTION

¶142

¶143

/
. torfkffi Arn4q i
TL_____ ___ a .i L> cDrcQif el uaA -'.
I
from No.1 6tairT5 foorr) i Nort6
(I) foc>mNto.i tommorcJd¢ Room i •-fu-cuhng froro i <_._ foom NO.5 >€Jb ())ii Rcoti ro4 coITfficjal tocim cAjes+ RcoT^NO.5- cAjcu#nl Rcom
ii
This \s ne ru of the documentmarkedasANNEXUREin •ha ahn\ie r.ase J quiJRT+--___-_--- `

Anirudhan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anirudhan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nixon S Vs the District Collector

Vinay Shanker Vs Union of India

Nizar Koya Thangal Vs Gail India Limited

Suresh P.R Vs Erattupetta Municipality

Lilly Vs the State of Kerala

Mohanan Nair Vs the Forest Range Officer