Disposed

Joseph P.T v. the Secretary

Kerala HC13 Dec 2022WP(C)/33222/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that proceedings irregularly issued as stop memos and demolition orders without proper statutory language do not constitute valid Section 235W notices. The Court directed the Panchayat to treat the notice as provisional, hear both parties, and pass final orders within 10 days.

What did the court decide?

The 1st respondent must treat the proceedings as a notice, hear both parties, and pass a final order under Section 235 W(3) within 10 days.

Joseph P.T Vs the Secretary — 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 13^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 33222 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

JOSEPH P.T AGED 78 YEARS S/O THOMAN, PARAPADAN HOUSE, BASLEHAM, THIRUMUDIKUNNU, KARUKUTTY(P.O), ERNAKULAM-683576.

¶8

BY ADV BIJU.P.N.

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE SECRETARY, KARUKUTTY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, OFFICE OF THE KARUKUTTY PANCHAYATH, KARUKUTTY.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683576. 2 BIJU, AGED 44 YEARS S/O DEVASSY,PARAPADAN HOUSE, MADAPUZHA, KARUKUTTY VILLLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISRTRICT-683576. 3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KARUKUTTY VILLAGE, KARUKUTTY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT683576. BY ADVS. ANIL PRABHA.K - S.C. N.L.BITTO K.RAJESWARY(K/218/1999) BY G.P. SRI. SYMANTHAK

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

WP(C) NO. 33222 OF 2022

¶13

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Exts.P2 and P6 issued by the 1^st respondent. Ext.P2 is the stop memo and Ext.P6 is the proceedings by which the petitioner was directed to demolish the compound wall constructed by him without obtaining permission from the Panchayat.

¶16

On going through Exts.P2 and P6, it is not evident as to whether the same has been issued in exercise of the powers under Section 235 W(1) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act (for short, the Act) since Ext.P2 does not recite that it is a provisional ordercum-show cause notice. Ext.P6 also does not recite that the same is an order passed under Section 235 W(3) of the Act. Accordingly, the parties shall treat Ext.P6 as a notice issued under Section 235 W (1) of the Act. The petitioner shall file fresh objection to Ext.P6 and the 1^st respondent shall consider the objection of the petitioner and pass final orders under

¶17

WP(C) NO. 33222 OF 2022

¶18

¶19

Section 235 W(3) of the Act within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Before passing orders pursuant to Ext.P6, the 1^st respondent shall hear the petitioner as well as the 2^nd respondent.

¶20

The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN (JUDGE)

¶23

al/-

¶24

WP(C) NO. 33222 OF 2022

¶25

¶26

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 33222/2022

¶27

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶28

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PANCHAYAT REGISTER (ROADS) DATED 17.6.2022. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 16.6.2022.

¶29

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 14.7.2022. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPTS DATED 14.7.2022. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CMA 39/2022, SUB COURT, PARAVOOR. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER FOR DEMOLISHING THE WALL DATED 14.10.2022.

¶30

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶31

Exhibit-R1(a) True copy of the complaint made by the 2nd respondent before the 1st respondent dated 13/10/2022 Exhibit-R1(b) True copy of the enquiry report submitted by the Assistant engineer dated 13/10/2022 Exhibit-R1(c) True copy of the stop memo issued by the 1st respondent against the petitioner dated 14/10/2022.

Joseph P.T v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joseph P.T v. the Secretary

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

Hafsa Beevi Shajahan Vs the District Collector

Deepa K.P. Vs State of Kerala

Thomas Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Ibrahim Vs Ani. P.N.

Laila, Vs Secretary, Vadanapally Grama Panchayat

Kv Apartments Pvt. Ltd. Vs Thahasildar (Lr)