Disposed

Vishnukumar S v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Nov 2022WP(C)/29779/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge observed that the petitioner's representation filed under ext.P3 is pending before the third respondent. Noting that notice to respondent 4 and 5 was returned due to insufficient address, the court dispensed with notice to them and directed the third respondent to consider ext.P3 along with notice to the petitioner and respondent 4 and 5 within one month, without expressing opinio

What did the court decide?

Direction to 3rd respondent to consider ext.P3 with notice to petitioner and respondent 4/5 within one month.

Vishnukumar S 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 MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 11TH KARTHIKA,

¶5

1944

¶6

WP(C) NO. 29779 OF 2022

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

VISHNUKUMAR S AGED 32 YEARS S/O.SIVADASAN, SIVADASA BHAVANAM, KADUVINAL P.O, VALLIKUNNAM, PIN , PIN - 690501

¶9

BY ADVS. V.G.ARUN (K/795/2004) N.RAPHY RAJ V.JAYA RAGI R.HARIKRISHNAN (KAMBISSERIL) NEERAJ NARAYAN AVANEETH S.R.

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

¶12

2 KARUNAGAPPALLY MUNICIPALITY REPRESSED BY ITS SECRETARY, LALAJI JUNCTION, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM, KERALA , PIN - 690518

¶13

3 SECRETARY KARUNAGAPPALLY MUNICIPALITY, LALAJI JUNCTION, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM, KERALA, PIN - 690518

¶14

4 MR.SHIRAS AGED 37 YEARS S/O.IBRHAMKUTTY,THEKKEMURI, KIZHAKKEKARAMURIYIL, SRP MARKET, THAZHAVA, KARUNAGAPPALLY, PINCODE, PIN - 690523

¶15

5+ MRS.AFREEDA AGED 33 YEARS W/O.SHIRAS, THEKKEMURI, KIZHAKKEKARAMURIYIL, SRP MARKET, THAZHAVA, KARUNAGAPPALLY, PIN - 690523 BY ADV M.R.SASITH

¶16

W.P.(C)No.29779 of 2022

¶17

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

W.P.(C)No.29779 of 2022

¶20

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The petitioner has approached this Court alleging inaction on the part of the 3^rd respondent on Ext.P3 representation filed by the petitioner with regard to certain constructions carried out by respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Though this Court has issued notice to respondent Nos. 4 and 5, the notice has been returned stating 'insufficient address'.

¶23

When this writ petition came up for further consideration today, it is submitted by the learned standing counsel

¶24

for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that Ext.P3 representation is pending consideration before the 3^rd respondent.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned standing counsel for respondents 2 and 3 and the learned Government Pleader for the 1^st respondent.

¶26

In the nature of the direction I propose to issue, notice to respondent Nos. 4 and 5 is dispensed with. Taking into account the

¶27

W.P.(C)No.29779 of 2022

¶28

¶29

submission made by the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and

¶30

3, there will be a direction to the 3^rd respondent to consider Ext.P3 with notice to the petitioner and respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and pass appropriate orders, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion as to the merits of Ext.P3.

¶31

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE

¶34

¶35

W.P.(C)No.29779 of 2022

¶36

¶37

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29779/2022

¶38

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶39

Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO. TP-BA(33351)/2017 DATED 10-07-2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT MUNICIPALITY Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22-08-2022 SUBMITTED TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22-08-2022 SUBMITTED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT

Vishnukumar S v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishnukumar S 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

The Director, Vs the Chalakkudy Municipality

Abdul Rahiman Vs the Secretary

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

K. Abdul Razak Vs State of Kerala

A.Nazarudheen Vs Satheesh

P.K.Baby, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer