Allowed

M. Damodaran Master v. Mattannur Municipality

Kerala HC1 Feb 2021WP(C)/555/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed orders suspending and cancelling a building permit issued by the Municipality due to violation of natural justice. It directed the authorities to treat notices as show-cause notices and pass fresh orders after hearing objections.

What did the court decide?

Quashed of impugned suspension and cancellation orders; direction to treat notices as show-cause notices; fresh orders to be passed within three weeks after hearing.

M. Damodaran Master Vs Mattannur… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

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

¶5

WP(C).No.982 OF 2021(W)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 M. DAMODARAN MASTER AGED 70 YEARS (FORMER PRESIDENT, MANDALAM CONGRESS COMMITTEE, MATTANNUR) S/O.KANNAN, PENSIONER, AISWARYA, METTADI, KOLARI AMSOM, METTADI DESOM, P.O.PORORA, PIN - 670 702.

¶8

2 A.K.RAJESH PRESIDENT, MANDALAM CONGRESS COMMITTEE, MATTANNUR, (RESIDING IN SIVAGANGA, MALAKKUTHAZHE MATTANNUR, PAZHASSI AMSOM, MATTANNUR DESOM, PIN - 670 702.

¶9

BY ADVS.

¶10

SRI.K.V.PAVITHRAN SRI.P.P.RAMACHANDRAN SHRI.JITHIN S SUNDARAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 MATTANNUR MUNICIPALITY REP. BY THE SECRETARY, P.O.MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670 702.

¶13

2 SECRETARY, MATTANNUR MUNICIPALITY P.O.MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670 702.

¶14

3 THE MUNICIPAL ENGINEER MATTANNUR MUNICIPALITY, ASST. ENGINEER, LSGD SECTION, MATTANNUR MUNICIPALITY, PIN - 670 702, IRITTY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶15

R1-3 BY ADV. SRI.V.M.SYAM KUMAR R1-3 BY ADV. SMT.P.F.ROSY R1-3 BY ADV. SMT.SNEHA RAJIV, SC

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.02.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).555/2021(T), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

W.P(C).Nos.982 & 555 of 2021

¶18

¶19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶20

PRESENT

¶21

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶22

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

¶23

WP(C).No.555 OF 2021(T)

¶24

PETITIONERS:

¶25

1 M. DAMODARAN MASTER AGED 70 YEARS S/O. KANNA, (FORMEER PRESIDENT MANDALAM CONGRESS COMMITTEE, MATTANNUR) AISWARYAM, METTADI, KOLARI AMSOM, METTADI DESOM, P.O PORORA, PIN 670 702

¶26

2 A.K RAJESH, AGED 46 YEARS S/O. BALAN, PRESIDENT, MANDALAM CONGRESS COMMITTEE, MATTANNUR, RESIDING AT SIVAGANGA, MALAKKUTHAZHE, PAZHASSI AMSOM, MATTANNUR DESOM, PIN 670 702

¶27

BY ADVS. SRI.K.V.PAVITHRAN SRI.P.P.RAMACHANDRAN SRI.JAYANANDAN MADAYI PUTHIYAVEETTIL SHRI.JITHIN S SUNDARAN

¶28

RESPONDENTS:

¶29

1 MATTANNUR MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, P.O MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT PIN 670 702

¶30

2 THE SECRETARY MATTANNUR MUNICIPALITY P.O, MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN 670 702

¶31

3 THE CHAIRPERSON (SMT. ANITHA VENU) MATTANNUR MUNICIPALITY P.O, MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN 670 702

¶32

W.P(C).Nos.982 & 555 of 2021

¶33

¶34

4 THE MUNICIPAL ENGINEER, MATTANNUR MUNICIPALITY, ASST. ENGINEER , LSGD SECTION, MATTANNUR MUNICIPALITY, PIN 670 702, IRITTY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶35

R1-4 BY ADV. SRI.V.M.SYAM KUMAR R1-4 BY ADV. SMT.P.F.ROSY R1-4 BY ADV. SMT.SNEHA RAJIV

¶36

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.02.2021, ALONG WITH WP(C).982/2021(W), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶37

W.P(C).Nos.982 & 555 of 2021

¶38

¶39

JUDGMENT

¶40

As both these writ petitions involve a common issue, they are taken up for consideration together and disposed by this common judgment.

¶41

W.P.(C).No.555 of 2021 was filed by the petitioners impugning Ext.P6 communication of the 4^th respondent that informed the petitioners of the suspension of a building permit that was granted to them. W.P. (C).No.982 of 2021 is the subsequent Writ Petition filed by the petitioners aggrieved by Ext.P4 order by which the petitioners were informed that the building permit issued to them, and which was suspended earlier, had since been cancelled by the respondents. In both these Writ Petitions, the grievance of the petitioners is essentially that the orders suspending the building permit as well as cancelling the building permit have been passed without hearing the petitioners and without considering any objections of the petitioners to the proposed course of action. The contention is essentially that the impugned orders are vitiated by a non-compliance with the rules of natural justice.

¶42

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the

¶43

W.P(C).Nos.982 & 555 of 2021

¶44

¶45

learned Standing counsel for the respondent Municipality.

¶46

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the Bar, I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the orders impugned in both these Writ Petitions were passed without hearing the petitioners and without considering their objection to the proposed course of action that was ultimately adopted by the respondent Municipality. I therefore, find that the orders impugned in both these Writ Petitions are vitiated by a non-compliance with the rules of natural justice, and therefore, cannot be legally sustained. I, therefore, quash the impugned orders in both these Writ petitions and direct the respondent Municipality to treat Ext.P4 order in W.P.(C).No.982 of 2021 as a show cause notice issued to the petitioners calling for their objections against the proposed action for cancellation of the building permit. The respondents shall also additionally inform the petitioners as to the grounds on which they propose to cancel the building permit that was already issued to the petitioners, and thereafter, consider the objections filed by the petitioners to the said proposal before passing a fresh order in the matter. To enable the respondents to pass fresh orders as above, I direct the petitioner to prefer his objections to Ext.P4 order, by treating the same as a show cause notice, and after obtaining the additional grounds

¶47

W.P(C).Nos.982 & 555 of 2021

¶48

¶49

from the respondents for the proposed course of action, within two weeks from the date of receipt of the same from the respondents. The respondents shall, thereupon consider the objections preferred by the petitioners and pass fresh orders in the matter, after hearing the petitioners, within three weeks thereafter.

¶50

The petitioners shall produce a copy of the writ petition together with a copy of this judgment, before the respondents, for further action. Coercive steps against the petitioners shall not be taken till such time as orders are passed by the respondents as directed and the order communicated to the petitioners.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶53

JUDGE

¶54

mns/01.02.2021

¶55

W.P(C).Nos.982 & 555 of 2021

¶56

¶57

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 982/2021

¶58

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶59

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RENEWED BUILDING PERMIT. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT CANCELLING THE RENEWAL OF THE PERMIT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 8/1/2021 IN WP(C) NO.555/5021. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1/1/2021 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT REJECTING THE RENEWAL APPLICATION. EXHIBIT P5 THE COVER IN WHICH EXT.P4 ORDER IS SERVED ON THE 1ST PETITIONER.

¶60

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL

¶61

//TRUE COPY//

¶62

P.A TO JUDGE

¶63

W.P(C).Nos.982 & 555 of 2021

¶64

¶65

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 555/2021

¶66

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶67

EXHIBIT	P1 TRUE COPY 27342/2020	OF FILED	THE WRIT PETITION NO BY THE PETITIONERS
EXHIBIT	P2 TRUE COPY THE WP(C)	OF THE NO. 273	INTERIM ORDER PASSED IN 42/2020 DATED 11-12-2020
EXHIBIT	P3 TRUE COPY OF THE AC OF THE ORD	OF THE KNOWLED ER.	COVERING LETTER AND COPY GMENT EVIDENCING RECEIPT
EXHIBIT	P4 TRUE COPY ISSUED TO	OF THE THE 1ST	RENEWED BUILDING PERMIT PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT	P5 TRUE COPY 27342/2020	OF THE	JUDGMENT IN W.P(C) NO.
EXHIBIT	P6 TRUE COPY ISSUED BY	OF THE THE 4TH	LETTER DATED 22-12-2020 RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P7 TRUE COPY RENEWAL PERMIT, UN	OF T APPLICAT DER RIG	HE PROCEEDINGS IN THE ION OF THE BUILDING HT TO INFORMATION ACT ON
	29-12-2020 PROCEEDING	AND S OF TH	RELEVANT PAGES OF THE E MUNICIPALITY.

¶68

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL

¶69

//TRUE COPY//

¶70

P.A TO JUDGE

M. Damodaran Master v. Mattannur Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Damodaran Master v. Mattannur Municipality

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

Moosa, Vs the District Collector Kozhikode

Jeethu Martin Vs State of Kerala

Saud Vayanoli Poyil Vs Deputy Tahsildar

Nancy Sirajudeen Vs Shaji S.

K.Ratnamani Vs the Senior Geologist

M. Damodaran Master Vs Mattannur Municipality