Disposed

Sister Remya v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Jul 2022WP(C)/1964/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought permits to construct a playground. The respondent Panchayat disputed the quantity of earth to be removed, claiming a lower figure than the petitioner's claim. The court directed the Panchayat to inspect the premises. The court did not grant the requested writs.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit a revised application based on the Panchayat's finding of 2500 cubic meters; witnesses to be named so as to bring out the truth.

Sister Remya Vs State of Kerala — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 14TH ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 1964 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

SISTER REMYA
AGED 66 YEARS
DAUGHTER OF AUGUSTIN, MOTHER SUPERIOR,
ST. PAULS BETHANY CONVENT, KOLENCHERY,
ERNAULAM DISTRICT-682311.
BY ADVS.P.MOHAMED SABAH
SAIPOOJA

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY ,
DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT ,
ROOM NO. 264, 2ND FLOOR, SOUTH BLOCK ,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2POOTHRIKKA GRAMA PANCHAYAT
PANCHAYATH OFFICE POOTHRIKA,
AIKARANADU SOUTH, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682308
3THE SECRETARY
POOTHRIKKA GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
PANCHAYATH OFFICE POOTHRIKA,
AIKARANADU SOUTH,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 682308
4THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST ERNAKULAM,
DISTRICT OFFICE OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,
CIVIL STATION, SEAPORT AIRPORT ROAD,
KAKKANADU,ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682030
BY ADVS.DEEPA NARAYANAN, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL

¶9

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 05.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶10

W.P.(C).No.1964/2022

¶11

¶12

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

¶13

W.P.(C).No.1964 of 2022

¶14

---------------------------------------------Dated this the 05^th day of July, 2022

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

¶17

i. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ directing the respondent No.3 to issue a building permit and development permit to the petitioner for construction of an open stage and play ground in the property of St. Pauls Bethany School, Kolenchery having a total extent of 95 Ares and 78 Square meter comprised in survey Nos.19/6-3-3,19/6-4-3, 19/17 and 22/1 of Aikaranad south Village, within a reasonable time fixed by this Hon'ble court.

¶18

ii. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ directing the respondent No.4 to expediently issue transit passes for the removal of ordinary earth in connection with the construction of an open stage and

¶19

W.P.(C).No.1964/2022

¶20

¶21

play ground in the property of St: Pauls Bethany School, Kolenchery.

¶22

iii. Declare that the petitioner possess deemed building permit and development permit enabling her to construct an open stage and play ground in the property of St. Pauls Bethany School, Kolenchery.

¶23

iv. Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶24

(SIC)

¶25

Petitioner is seeking a direction to the 3^rd respondent to issue building permit and development permit so as to enable the petitioner to construct an open stage and play ground at St.Pauls Bethany School, Kolenchery and further to direct the 4^th respondent to issue necessary transit passes to transport ordinary earth removed during the construction of the play ground. Petitioner is the mother superior of St.Pauls Bethany Convent, Kolenchery and also head of the St:Pauls Bethany School, Kolenchery conducted by the convent. Currently the students of the school are facing immense difficulty due to the lack of a spacious play ground

¶26

W.P.(C).No.1964/2022

¶27

¶28

an open stage. According to the petitioner, the 3^rd respondent is duty bound to consider the applications submitted by the petitioner and issue development permit and building permit after conducting necessary inspection and also by permitting the petitioner to remit the requisite fee for the same. But it is stated that the 3^rd respondent has not even considered the applications of the petitioner, despite being the fact that, the purpose of the said application is the construction of a common facility in an educational institution. According to the petitioner, she is entitled for deemed building permit and development permit as contemplated under Rule 14(2) of Kerala Building Rules, since the 3^rd respondent has failed to finalise the application submitted by the petitioner within a period of one month. As per Rule 106 of Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, quarrying permit is exempted for construction of common facility of a recognized educational institution, but transit passes are required for transportation of ordinary earth. The inaction from the part of the 3^rd respondent for issuing development permit and building permit to the petitioner has been delaying construction of play

¶29

¶30

W.P.(C).No.1964/2022

¶31

ground and open stage at the School is the submission of the petitioner. In the circumstances, this writ petition is filed.

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. I also heard the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents.

¶33

The main grievance in this writ petition is about the quantity of ordinary earth to be removed for the purpose of construction. According to the petitioner, 14660.72 cubic meters of ordinary earth has to be removed for the purpose of leveling the land and to make it as a play ground and open stage. The Panchayat considered this aspect after inspection and took a stand that only 2500 cubic meters of ordinary earth need to be removed for leveling the land. For that purpose, a revised application is to be submitted. This is the stand of the Panchayat.

¶34

There is a dispute about the quantity of ordinary earth to be removed for the purpose of construction of play ground and open stage. The Panchayat says that only 2500 cubic meters of ordinary earth need to be removed; but the petitioner says that it is about 14660.72 cubic meters of ordinary earth is to be removed. When there is such a dispute,

¶35

W.P.(C).No.1964/2022

¶36

¶37

the Panchayat authorities can once again inspect the premises of the petitioner with notice to the petitioner and assess the matter in detail with the assistance of experts, if necessary. The petitioner is also free to get the assistance of an expert at the time of inspection by the Panchayat. The officials of the Panchayat will hear the experts if any produced by the petitioner also before deciding the matter. After the inspection and after hearing the petitioner, the Panchayat will pass an order about the quantity of ordinary earth that can be removed for the purpose of construction of play ground and open stage.

¶38

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of in the following manner:

¶39

Respondents 2 and 3 are directed to inspect the premises of the petitioner with notice to the petitioner and to find out how much ordinary earth can be removed for the purpose of construction of the play ground and the open stage.

¶40

At the time of inspection, the petitioner is free to get the assistance of an expert and the

¶41

W.P.(C).No.1964/2022

¶42

¶43

expert is free to submit the details on behalf of the petitioner to the Panchayat authorities.

¶44

The above exercise should be completed by respondents 2 and 3, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶45

sd/-

¶46

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶47

¶48

W.P.(C).No.1964/2022

¶49

¶50

¶51

`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`
`Exhibit1` `TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DATED` `21.10.2021 ISSUED FROM THE VILLAGE` `OFFICE OF AIKARANAD SOUTH VILLAGE WITH` `RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY HAVING AN` `EXTENT OF 32 ARES AND 48 SQUARE METER` `COMPRISED IN SURVEY NOS. 19/6-3-3 OF` `AIKARANAD SOUTH VILLAGE`
`Exhibit2` `TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DATED` `21.10.2021 ISSUED FROM THE VILLAGE` `OFFICE OF AIKARANAD SOUTH VILLAGE WITH` `RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY HAVING AN` `EXTENT OF 22 ARES AND 05 SQUARE METER` `COMPRISED IN SURVEY NOS. 19/6-4-3 OF` `AIKARANAD SOUTH VILLAGE`
`Exhibit3` `TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DATED` `21.10.2021 ISSUED FROM THE VILLAGE` `OFFICE OF AIKARANAD SOUTH VILLAGE WITH` `RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY HAVING AN` `EXTENT OF 41 ARES AND 25 SQUARE METER` `COMPRISED IN SURVEY NOS. 19/17 AND` `22/1 OF AIKARANAD SOUTH VILLAGE`
`Exhibit4` `TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED` `09.02.2021 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF` `THE RESPONDENT NO.3 EVIDENCING THE` `RECEIPT OF THE APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED` `BY THE PETITIONER FOR OBTAINING` `BUILDING PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PERMIT`

Sister Remya v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sister Remya 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Skyline Orion Park Owners Association Vs State of Kerala

Sr. Blessy Maria Sabs Vs the District Collector

Seema Vs State of Kerala

Saji George Vs the District Geologist

Abdul Sathar Vs Vazhakulam Grama Panchayat

Kunjumon Vs State of Kerala