Quashed

Shinto Sebastian v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Nov 2022WP(C)/32526/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala set aside a Panchayat's rejection order and a subsequent notice issued to the petitioner without a hearing. The Court held that a prior order directed the Panchayat to pass orders after giving a hearing, rendering the post-decision notice invalid. Reliefs were granted within one week.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P9 decision and Ext.P11 notice are set aside; Respondents 4 & 6 to comply with previous directions within one week.

Shinto Sebastian Vs the State of Kerala — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

WP(C) NO. 32526 OF 2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN FRIDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 13TH KARTHIKA, 1944

¶6

WP(C) NO. 32526 OF 2022

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

SHINTO SEBASTIAN AGED 37 YEARS REP BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, VINOD TC, S/O. CHANDRAN T R, RESIDING AT THACHARAYIKKAL HOUSE, ELAKKODE P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 587

¶9

BY ADVS. ANOOP.V.NAIR E.ADITHYAN MEENAKSHY S DEV ROHAN MAMMEN ROY

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 THE STATE OF KERALA

¶12

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶13

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680 003.

¶14

3 THE TAHSILDAR, TALAPPILLY, KODUNGALLUR - SHORNUR ROAD, WADAKKANCHERY, KERALA- 680 623.

¶15

4 .THE KONDAZHI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KONDAZHI, THRISSUR DISTRICT-679 106, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶16

5 THE SECRETARY, THE KONDAZHI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KONDAZHI, THRISSUR DISTRICT679 106

¶17

6 THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST, DISTRICT OFFICE, D DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY , THRISSUR 680 003. BY ADV P.JAYARAM

¶18

BY G.P SRI. SYAMANTHAK

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C) NO. 32526 OF 2022

¶21

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The petitioner had earlier approached this Court in W.P. (C) No. 25849 of 2022 aggrieved by Ext.P5 stop memo issued by the Panchayat based on Ext.P7 notice issued by the Senior Geologist, the 6^t^h respondent with regard to the extraction of ordinary earth which is not covered by Exts.P3 & P4. This Court, by Ext.P8(a) judgment, set aside Exts.P5 and P7 and issued the following directions.

¶24

“2. The 4^th respondent is directed to reconsider the matter in the light of the admission by the petitioner that he is ready to pay the fine or refill the area with red earth. The Panchayat will pass appropriate orders, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶25

Based on the decision of the Panchayat, the 5^th respondent will consider the application for renewal of Ext.P3, in accordance to law.”

¶26

The Panchayat, by Ext.P9 resolution dated 16.09.2022, rejected Ext.P8 representation and issued

¶27

Ext.P11 notice dated 26.9.2022 to the petitioner for hearing in purported compliance with the directions in Ext.P8(a) judgment.

¶28

WP(C) NO. 32526 OF 2022

¶29

¶30

Ext.P9 decision has been taken without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as directed in Ext.P8(a) judgment. When this Court directed the Panchayat to pass orders on Ext.P8, no purpose could be served by issuing Ext.P11 notice for post decisional hearing. Exts.P9 decision and P11 notice are, therefore, set aside. The respondents 4 and 6 shall comply with the directions in Ext.P8(a) judgment within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶31

Based on the decision to be taken by the Panchayat, the 6^th respondent Senior Geologist shall consider the application of the petitioner for renewal of Ext.P3, in accordance with law within a period of one month thereafter.

¶32

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

al/-

¶37

WP(C) NO. 32526 OF 2022

¶38

¶39

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32526/2022

¶40

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER DATED 06.05.2021
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX REGISTER DATED 08.04.2022
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE SITE APPROVAL AND BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER DATED 22.04.2022
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT, DATED 15.06.2022
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DATED 18.06.2022 ISSUED BY THE AZY GRAMAA PANCHAYAT, THE 4TH RESPONDENT HEREIN
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF THE THE STOP MEMO DATED 18.06.2022 ISSUED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER CHELAKKARA
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY OF THE TEMPORARY STOP MEMO DATED 18.06.2022 I BY THE TAHSILDAR, THE 3RD RESPONDENT HEREIN
Exhibit P8	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19.07.2022 FORWARDED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT HEREIN
Exhibit P8 A	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W P (C) 25849 OF 2022 DATED 26.08.2022, PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
Exhibit P9	TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 16.09.2022
Exhibit P10	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE MINUTES OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT WHEREIN THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER WAS REJECTED.
Exhibit P11	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 26.09.2022 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER

Shinto Sebastian v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shinto Sebastian v. the 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

Murali T.G Vs Vettom Grama Panchayath

Mohanan Vs the District Collector

Saju George, Vs the Additional District Magistrate

K. Sukumaran Vs Vellinezhi Grama Panchayat

Siju Tv Vs the District Collector

Princy Sebastian Vs Secretary