Disposed

The Director, v. the Chalakkudy Municipality

Kerala HC1 Nov 2022WP(C)/28/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought directions to maintain a bye-road. Court ordered the Secretary to place a representation before the Municipal Council within two weeks for a decision after hearing both sides, clarifying no opinion on merits was expressed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent 2 to place Ext.P8 before Council within two weeks; 1st Respondent to decide within two months after hearing petitioner and 3rd respondent.

The Director, Vs the Chalakkudy Municipality — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 10TH KARTHIKA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 28 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

THE DIRECTOR, ST. JAMES HOSPITAL, CHALAKKUDY 680 307. BY ADVS. KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM (SR.) SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM SRI.THOMAS GEORGE SRI.ALEX GEORGE (CHAMAPPARAYIL) SHRI.EBEE ANTONY

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE CHALAKKUDY MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CHALAKKUDY-680 307

¶10

2 THE SECRETARY, CHALAKKUDY MUNICIPALITY, CHALAKKUDY-680 307

¶11

3 MATHEW BASTINE, (ALIAS KUNJUMON), CHENGINIMATTOM HOUSE, NEAR ST. JAMES HOSPITAL, CHALAKKUDY-680 307 BY ADVS.

¶12

SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR SRI.M.HARISHARMA SRI.D.NARENDRANATH SMT.BINDU SREEDHAR - S.C. SHRI.ASIF N

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C) No. 28 OF 2021

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The petitioner is the Director of a Private Hospital. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Municipality is not maintaining the bye-road leading from the Pappy road which lies towards the north of the hospital. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for the following reliefs.

¶18

“i) to issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate order or direction to quash Exts.P 2, P4, P5 & P6.

¶19

ii) to issue a writ mandamus or other appropriate order or direction to direct the 1^st respondent Municipality to take up the repair / maintenance of the road leading to Pappi Road, on the southern side of petitioner's hospital.

¶20

iii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate order or direction to direct the first respondent to include the pathway referred to in EXts.P2 to P6 , in the Asset Register of the 1^st respondent. Municipality, if that is necessary for the repair and maintenance of the said road, by the Municipality.

¶21

During the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner has filed Ext.P8 representation which is produced along with I.A.1/2022, before the Secretary of the Municipality

¶22

¶23

WP(C) No. 28 OF 2021

¶24

requesting to take steps to repair the aforesaid road.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the

¶26

learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent.

¶27

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent that a civil suit is pending with respect to the pathway in question and the 2^nd respondent may be directed to consider Ext.P8 representation after considering the objection submitted by the 3^rd respondent. The learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that Ext.P8 representation has been received in their office.

¶28

In the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the submissions made by the counsel on either side, there will be a direction to the 2^nd respondent to place Ext.P8 representation before the Council of the 1^st respondent Municipality within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The 1^st respondent shall take a decision on Ext.P8 within two months thereafter, after hearing the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent. It is made clear

¶29

WP(C) No. 28 OF 2021

¶30

¶31

that this Court has not expressed any opinion as to the merits of Ext.P8 representation.

¶32

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE

¶35

al/-

¶36

WP(C) No. 28 OF 2021

¶37

¶38

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28/2021

¶39

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12.10.2020 FROM THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION DATED 20.10.2020.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20.10.2020 FROM THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 23.10.2020 TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 20.10.2020 OF THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, CHALAKUDY.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29.10.2020 TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 8.2.2017 W.A. NO. 1537/2015 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
Exhibit P8	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25.10.2022 ADDRESSED TO THE SECRETARY OF THE CHALAKUDY MUNICIPALITY.
Exhibit P9	TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH OF HOSPITAL AND THE DISPUTED ROAD.

The Director, v. the Chalakkudy Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Director, v. the Chalakkudy 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

Joshy Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Joshy Joseph Vs Circle Inspector of Police

Shelvy George Vs the District Collector

Abdul Rahiman Vs the Secretary

Shri. Ulahannan, Vs the Director of Mining and Geology Department

Raneesh Vs the District Collector