Dismissed

Prasanna Prathapan v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Mar 2021WP(C)/4031/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ petition seeking protection of a street vendor's kiosk. The court held the dispute involved questions of fact as the petitioner had already approached the civil court. No writ interference was permitted at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to bring the matter before the Civil Court and seek reliefs at the earliest.

Prasanna Prathapan Vs the State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 13TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.4031 OF 2021(D)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

PRASANNA PRATHAPAN, AGED 54 YEARS DAUGHTER OF SMT.MADHAVI, THAMARASSERY HOUSE, MULAVUKAD, THANTHONNITHURUTH, ERNAKULAM-682 504.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.SAJEN THAMPAN SMT.P.P.BLESSY MOL

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, STATE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶11

2 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS, SUB DIVISION, ERNAKULAM-683 101.

¶12

3 THE CORPORATION OF COCHIN, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, COCHIN CORPORATION-682 011.

¶13

4 ADDL R4, COCHIN SMART MISSION LIMITED-CSML, 4TH FLOOR, JLN METRO STATION KALOOR, KOCHI-682017, KERALA, INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. ADDL R4 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 23-02-2021 IN IA NO.1/2021 IN WP(C)4031/2021.

¶14

R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.) R4 BY ADV. SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

SR.GP K.P HARISH, SC SRI.K.JANARDHANA SHENOY

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P(C).4031/2021

JUDGMENT

Petitioner is a street vendor earning the livelihood from a KIOSK allotted to her. Petitioner claims that, pursuant to a beautification programme undertaken by the additional 4^th respondent, she is proposed to be removed from that place. Petitioner sought relief in the nature of directing respondents not to remove her KIOSK.

¶22

Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the additional 4^th respondent pointed out that the petitioner has already moved O.S.No.112 of 2019, which is produced as Ext.P5 before the Civil Court and an application for temporary injunction is pending. Interlocutory application now stands posted to 10.03.2021. It was also pointed out by the learned senior counsel for the additional 4^th respondent that, the work undertaken by CSML is one adopted to bring selected roads in cities to national standards. The present road, where the petitioner claims to have put up KIOSK is one among it. The work at Abraham Madamakkal Road has been completed. Learned Senior Counsel also pointed out that the petitioner was originally allotted a different spot, which is evident from Ext.P1. It is near Chathiath road, as indicated in Ext.P1, from where, she gradually moved to the present spot, which cannot be permitted.

¶23

W.P(C).4031/2021

¶24

¶25

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, due to beautification programme at the road where she was originally located, she was directed to move to another spot and hence, she was compelled to shift from one place to another. However, there are no records to support this contention. Having considered that the dispute involves question of fact also and since the petitioner has already moved the civil court, I feel that, it may not be proper to interfere at this stage.

¶26

In the result, Writ Petition is dismissed, however, with a direction that the petitioner shall bring up the matter before the Civil Court and seek reliefs at the earliest. If the Court is not sitting due to COVID-19, petitioner will be free to move before the Judicial Officer-incharge of that Court, for an early disposal, which shall be considered by the Court.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS

JUDGE

Sbna

W.P(C).4031/2021

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶35

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF LETTER BY THE 3RD RES TO THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KSEB, ER DATED 02.06.2017.	PONDENT NAKULAM
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF RETAIL INVOICE ISSUED KERALA AGRO INDUSTRIES CORPORATIO DATED 04.11.2016.	BY THE N LTD.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD PETITIONER DATED 29.01.2021.	BY THE TO THE
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE F PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES ISSUED MEDICAL BOARD, DEPARTMENT OF SERVICES OF THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA	OR THE BY THE HEALTH TO THE
	DAUGHTER OF THE PETITIONER 22.10.2016.	DATED
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT PREFERRED PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE PR	BY THE INCIPAL
	MUNSIFF COURT ERNAKULAM NUMBERED NO.112 OF 2019 DATED 24.01.2019.	AS OS
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE	BY THE
	PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT 18.10.2019.	DATED
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE	BY THE
	PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT 17.10.2019.	DATED
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT NUMBERED NO.143 OF 2021 ON THE FILES OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE CO	AS CMP HON'BLE URT II,
	ERNAKULAM DATED 05.02.2021.

Prasanna Prathapan v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasanna Prathapan v. the State of Kerala

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

Jijo Antony Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

E.K.Kunhimoideen Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority

Saji Joseph Vs the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Tibin James Vs the Regional Transport Officer

Jose V.C. Vs the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Ragesh R.I. Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority