Partly allowed

Shri. K.P. Lakshmanan v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Aug 2021WP(C)/7049/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged a decision regarding the alignment of a proposed road construction due to lack of prior hearing. The High Court directed the Executive Engineer to consider the matter afresh after providing the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 4th respondent to consider the matter of Ext.P7 afresh after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard on a specified date.

Shri. K.P. Lakshmanan Vs the State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

WP(C) NO. 7049 OF 2021 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶5

THURSDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 7049 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

SHRI. K.P. LAKSHMANAN, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O.K.K.KUTTYAPPA NAIR, RESIDING AT 'SRISHTI, NEAR CCSM LTD, P.O. CHOVVA, KANNUR - 670006.

¶8

BY ADVS. S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA SRI.R.GITHESH SRI.AJAY BEN JOSE SRI.MANJUNATH MENON SHRI.HARIKRISHNAN S.

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001.

¶11

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE ROAD, THAVAKKARA, KANNUR - 670002.

¶12

3 THE CHIEF ENGINEER(ROADS), PWD, ADMINISTRATION AND ROADS AND BRIDGES, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695033.

¶13

4 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROADS DIVISION, PWD, KANNUR – 670002.

¶14

WP(C) NO. 7049 OF 2021 2

¶15

5 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS SUB - DIVISION, KANNUR - 670002.

¶16

SMT K AMMINIKUTTY, SR GP

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C) NO. 7049 OF 2021 3

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

The petitioner owns property having an extent of 3.49 Ares in Sy. No. 141/2 of Kannur Taluk. He has put up a residential building therein and is residing with his family.

¶21

The grievance of the petitioner concerns the alignment of the proposed construction of a new road from Thaze Chovva Railway Gate to Chovva Cooperative Spinning Mill. The petitioner contends that due to political influence exerted by certain interested persons, the alignment has been changed. If the road is constructed along the present alignment, it would bisect the property of the petitioner. In the said circumstances and narrating his grievances, the petitioner had preferred Ext.P7 representation before the 4th respondent. Later, he approached this Court and filed W.P. (C) No.22676 of 2020. By judgment dated 19.11.2020, the writ petition was disposed of by this Court directing the Executive Engineer, Roads Division to take a decision on Ext.P7 representation submitted by the petitioner within a period of eight weeks, after hearing the petitioner.

¶22

On 7.1.2021, Ext.P9 notice was issued to the petitioner asking him to appear on 13.1.2021. However, as the petitioner was at Itanagar in Arunachal Pradesh, he sent Ext.P10 letter by e-mail requesting that the date of hearing be deferred to 25.1.2021. The 4th respondent ignored

¶23

WP(C) NO. 7049 OF 2021 4

¶24

Ext.P10 and issued Ext.P11 communication rejecting the request. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner submitted Ext.P12 pointing out all these aspects. Finally, by Ext.P14, the 4th respondent informed the petitioner that no change can be made to the alignment. It is in the aforesaid background that the petitioner is before this Court seeking to quash Ext.P6, P6(a) to (c) and for a further direction to the 4th respondent to dispose of Ext.P7 after affording an opportunity to the petitioner.

¶25

I have heard Sri. Martin Jose, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶26

The learned Government Pleader submitted that enough opportunities were granted to the petitioner, but he did not avail of the same.

¶27

I have considered the submissions. It is undisputed that the petitioner was not heard before Ext.P11 communication was issued pursuant to Ext.P8 judgement issued by this Court. From Ext.P10 it is evident that the petitioner was not in station and he had sent an email in advance seeking hearing on another day. Instead of granting the petitioner an opportunity to advance his contentions, Ext.P11 decision was taken. Having considered the entire facts, I am of the considered opinion that the 4th respondent can be directed to consider the matter afresh after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.

¶28

WP(C) NO. 7049 OF 2021 5

¶29

In that view of the matter, there will be a direction to the petitioner to appear before the 4th respondent on 24.8.2021 on which day the 4th respondent shall hear the petitioner on Exhibit P7 and take a fresh decision in accordance with the law.

¶30

This writ petition is disposed of.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V,

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

¶35

WP(C) NO. 7049 OF 2021 6

¶36

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7049/2021

¶37

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :

¶38

EXHIBIT	P1 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO. 4330 OF 1996 DATED 24.12.1996.
EXHIBIT	P2 TRUE COPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT FOR THE PERIOD 2020-2021.
EXHIBIT	P3 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 16.09.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P4 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 22.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P5 TRUE COPY OF INITIAL PLAN FROM CH.OM TO CH.475M OBTAINED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.
EXHIBIT	P5(A) TRUE COPY OF INITIAL PLAN FROM CH 475M TO CH 794.31M OBTAINED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.
EXHIBIT	P6 TRUE COPY OF FINAL PLAN FROM CH.OM TO CH.802/245M OBTAINED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.
EXHIBIT	P6(A) TRUE COPY OF FINAL PLAN FROM CH.OM TO CH.375M OBTAINED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.
EXHIBIT	P6(B) TRUE COPY OF FINAL PLAN FROM CH.50M TO CH.475M OBTAINED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.
EXHIBIT	P6(C) TRUE COPY OF FINAL PLAN FROM CH.475M TO CH.802/245M OBTAINED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.
EXHIBIT	P7 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 08.09.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER

¶39

WP(C) NO. 7049 OF 2021 7

¶40

	BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 19.11.2020 IN WP(C) NO. 22676 OF 2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 07.01.2021 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF EMAIL DATED 11.01.2021 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. A2/6612/2020 DATED 13/01/2021 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 19.01.2021 TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P13	TRUE COPY OF MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 28.01.2021.
EXHIBIT P14	TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. A2-6612/2020 DATED 20.01.2021 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P15	TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. A2-6612/2020 DATED 06.02.2021 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶41

RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS : NIL

Shri. K.P. Lakshmanan v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. K.P. Lakshmanan 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

Rakesh T. Vs State of Kerala

Pushpa Chikkatti Vs the State of Kerala

Binoy T.M Vs M.T.Sukumaran

Rajan Vs the Tahsildar, Mannarkkad

Savithri Vs the Deputy Collector

T.M.Thomas Vs the District Collector,Kannur