Dismissed

Muthoot Fincorp Limited v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Jul 2022WA/765/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed the writ appeal by Muthoo Finance against the Kerala Water Authority. The court held that Article 226 cannot be used to vindicate grievances regarding private property enjoyment, rejecting the plea that surface pipelines would cause severe prejudice on rocky terrain, and affirmed that the appropriate remedy lies in Civil Court.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed; no relief granted to appellant.

Muthoot Fincorp Limited Vs State of Kerala — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 6^TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1944

¶7

W.A.NO. 765 OF 2022

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 17512/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 31.5.2022 APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶9

MUTHOOT FINCORP LIMITED HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT, MUTHOOT CENTRE, PUNNEN ROAD, TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, MR.RANA JOSEPH, PIN - 695034

¶10

BY ADVS.B.J.JOHN PRAKASH P.PRAMEL HARISHMA ASHIK TOM CELINE JOHN RAMSEENA N.

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT , 1ST FLOOR, MAIN BLOCK, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANATHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

¶13

2 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT ENGINEER P H SECTION, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 68694

¶14

BY ADVS.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.V.TEKCHAND SR.G.P. SRI P.M.JOHNY, S.C.

¶15

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WA NO. 765 OF 2022

:: 2 ::

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 6^th day of July 2022

¶20

S.MANIKUMAR, C.J.

¶21

The appellant is a company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956 and is engaged in providing various credit facilities and services to the general public in addition to commercial development of its properties for hospitality and other commercial activities. Appellant has approached this court being aggrieved by the judgment in W.P. (C)No.17512/2022 dated 31.5.2022.

¶22

Short facts leading to the filing of this writ appeal are as follows:

¶23

The appellant owns a parcel of land having an extent of 40.48 ares in survey No.P38/3-1-1 and P38/3-1-5 of Pathanamthitta Village, Kozhencherrry Taluk, Pathanamthitta district. It is submitted that the appellant proposes to develop the aforesaid property by constructing a commercial building therein within a span of 2 to 3 years. According to the appellant, the said property has road frontage of 60 meters and therefore, running the pipeline through the frontage of the appellant's property will cause severe prejudice. Appellant is aggrieved by conduct of the 2^nd respondent – Kerala Water Authority in the proposed laying of

¶24

WA NO. 765 OF 2022

¶25

:: 3 ::

¶26

water pipelines at the ground level throughout the frontage of the appellant's property lying beside Ring Road, Pathanamthitta, which will restrict the appellant from accessing its property and/or in putting the same to any commercial use at a future date.

¶27

Therefore, the appellant had therefore, issued a letter dated 24.3.2022 to 2^nd respondent – Kerala Water Authority requesting to lay the pipe in a fully concealed manner without hindering the free access or utility of the appellant's property. It is submitted that the 2^nd respondent has orally informed the appellant that they cannot accede to such request and shall proceed with laying of pipes at ground level. According to the appellant, such action of the 2^nd respondent infringe the right to property of the appellant.

¶28

Before the writ court, appellant has sought for a direction to the second respondent to lay the pipeline passing through the southern side of the Ring Road and northern side of the petitioner's property in a fully concealed manner without causing prejudice to the petitioner's right of enjoyment of the property. However, writ court closed the writ petition by judgment dated 31.5.2022, observing thus:

¶29

“Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length, I find the writ petition to be not maintainable, the

¶30

WA NO. 765 OF 2022

¶31

:: 4 ::

¶32

appropriate remedy being to approach the Civil Court. The writ petition is hence closed, reserving the petitioner's liberty to move the appropriate forum.”

¶33

In appeal, appellant has contended that the petitioner being the owner of the property has a right to maximize its utility and enjoy the same. However, the action of the second respondent – Kerala Water Authority is causing severe prejudice to the petitioner in the enjoyment of his right.

¶34

Another contention raised is that the land through which the proposed pipeline is to be laid is a rocky terrain, but that does not absolve the second respondent from excavating and concealing the pipeline.

¶35

Laying the pipeline through the surface not in a concealed manner would not only cause prejudice to the petitioner but would also involve risk of frequent damages putting undue burden to the public exchequer. Hence interference of this court is sought for in the matter.

¶36

On instructions, Mr.P.M.Johny, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Kerala Water Authority - respondent No.2 submitted that in certain areas in question, pipe line has been laid in a concealed

¶37

WA NO. 765 OF 2022

¶38

:: 5 ::

¶39

manner. However, some areas are found rocky and therefore, it is decided to conduct a scientific study to lay pipe line in those areas. On instructions, learned Standing Counsel submitted that the said scientific study is not yet completed.

¶40

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere with the matter since all the contentions raised above are with reference to the right of enjoyment of the property owned by the appellant. We make it clear that the powers vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be used as a recourse to vindicate grievances with respect to the enjoyment of a private property. Appellant can redress the grievances raised in this writ appeal before a civil court. Further, it is reported that a study undertaken to lay the pipelines in rocky area is yet to be finalised.

¶41

In the light of the above, writ appeal is dismissed.

¶42

SD/-

¶43

S.MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE

¶44

SD/SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶45

jes

Muthoot Fincorp Limited v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muthoot Fincorp Limited 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

Jacob Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Salim Vs Thajudeen M.H.

The Kollam District Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs the Kerala Lok Ayukta

T.v.Rajesh, Vs Deleted, State of Kerala

Rukia Bi Vs Union of India

K.C. Kuriakose Vs the Secretary, Kerala State Co. Operative Employees Pension Board