This writ appeal challenged the Single Judge's refusal to restrain a Grama Panchayat from constructing a public toilet. The Kerala High Court held the appellant lacked a legal right to block the construction and dismissed the appeal.
The writ appeal was dismissed; the judgment of the Learned Single Judge declining the reliefs sought was affirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 12TH MAGHA, 1943
WA NO. 61 OF 2022
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 16612/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 26.11.2021 APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
JOHN GEORGE AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.GEORGE, RESIDING IN THE ADDRESS KIZHAKOODAN HOUSE, ELINJIPRA VILLAGE DESOM, CHALAKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PINCODE - 680 712. BY ADV G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PINCODE - 695 001.
2 KODASSERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KODASSERY P.O., CHALAKUDY TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PINCODDE - 680 684.
BY ADVS. SRI. V. TEKCHAND SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 SMT. DAISY A. PHILIPOSE FOR R2 JAI GEORGE
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.A.61/2022
2
J U D G M E N T
Dated this the 1st day of February, 2022
Shaji P. Chaly, J
Captioned writ appeal is preferred by the petitioner in W.P(C).16612 of 2021 challenging the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 26.11.2021, whereby the following reliefs sought for were declined and the writ petition was dismissed.
“i) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding 2nd respondent not to construct toilet in front of the petitioners property obstructing his high way right,
ii) Direct the 2nd respondent to consider the objection raised by the petitioner in Ext-P3 representation and pass orders on the same, meantime there may be direction not to proceed with the construction of toilet in front of the property of the petitioner.”
Petitioner is aggrieved by the proposal of the Kodassery Grama Panchayat for construction of a comfort station by the side of a State Highway and within its limits, since according to the appellant, it is proposed to be constructed on the front side of the property of the
W.A.61/2022
3
appellant; where he is intending to construct a commercial complex. According to the appellant, the said proposal is illegal and will seriously affect the rights over the property of the appellant and his right to have access to the Highway. It is also submitted that the value of his property would be diminished, apart from contending that if the comfort station is constructed in the particular location, it would cause nuisance and water and air pollution. It is also said that though the appellant has submitted a representation, it was not considered, which according to the appellant, persuaded him to prefer the writ petition.
is a parking ground and therefore, according to the Grama Panchayat, no manner of prejudice will be caused to the appellant if a comfort station is
W.A.61/2022
4
constructed in the property. It is also stated that since there are no toilet facilities in the area, travelling public, including women are facing inconvenience; therefore, the contention advanced in the writ petition that there is no necessity to construct a toilet complex at the location, is not true or correct. It is further submitted that the toilet complex for the use of the public is available only 35Kms away from the proposed site. Therefore, it is an urgent requirement to put up a comfort station in the place in question. That apart, it is said that the building will be completed in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019 and by providing sufficient set back as required under the Rules, 2019.
W.A.61/2022
5
with the proposal of the Grama Panchayat to put up a comfort station. The question is whether any manner of interference is required to the Judgment of the learned Single Judge.
W.A.61/2022
6
village Panchayat area in respect of the matters enumerated in the IIIrd Schedule. Proviso thereto also specifies that it shall be the duty of the Village Panchayat to render services to the inhabitants of the village panchayat area in respect of the matters enumerated as mandatory function in the IIIrd Schedule.
W.A.61/2022
7
that in order to carry out any construction, even by the Panchayat, a building permit is required as is contemplated under the said rules. Therefore, the Panchayat is also duty bound to adhere to the Rules, 2019, which in fact is admitted by the Panchayat in the counter affidavit filed before the writ court.
W.A.61/2022
8
interference in an intra court appeal filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958. Needless to say, appeal fails and accordingly it is dismissed.
Sd/S. Manikumar, Chief Justice
Sd/Shaji P. Chaly, Judge
sou.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether to interfere with the judgment of the Learned Single Judge refusing to stop the Grama Panchayat from constructing a comfort station.
Whether the appellant has established any legal right to stop the Panchayat from constructing the proposed facility.
Whether jurisdictional error or legal infirmities exist that justify a writ appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958.
JOHN GEORGE
STATE OF KERALA
KODASSERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH
S. MANIKUMAR
SHAJI P. CHALY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
