Disposed

M.Y. Elias v. the Nenmeni Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC4 Apr 2022WP(C)/3918/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala directed the respondent Panchayat to re-consider the petitioner's application for a parking license after affording an opportunity of hearing, directing re-examination after the date of judgment with orders within one month and keeping impugned orders in abeyance.

What did the court decide?

Direction to re-consider the application after hearing; orders to be passed within one month; Exts. P2 and P3 kept in abeyance.

M.Y. Elias Vs the Nenmeni Grama Panchayath — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

¶4

MONDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF APRIL 2022 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 3918 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

M.Y. ELIAS AGED 61 YEARS S/O.YACOB, KUPPAKKOLLI, EDAKKAL CAVE, AMBALAVAYAL P.O., WAYANADU DISTRICT-673 593 BY ADV P.V.JEEVESH

¶8

RESPONDENT/S:

¶9

1 THE NENMENI GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NENMENI P.O., KOLIYADI, WAYANADU DISTRICT-673 595

¶10

2 THE SECRETARY, THE NENMENI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, NENMENI P.O., KOLIYADI, WAYANADU DISTRICT-673 595 BY ADVS. NIRMAL V NAIR RAHUL S.NATH

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

¶13

W.P.(C) No.3918 of 2022

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are

¶16

refusing to grant license to the petitioner for the purpose of putting to use his land for parking of vehicles of tourists who are coming to visit Edakkal Caves in Wayanad.

¶17

It is submitted that initially by Ext.P2 order, the application was rejected citing Covid restrictions and the reduction in tourists. Thereafter, by Ext.P3 order the application has been rejected for the reason that permission should be obtained from the disaster management authority. The petitioner submits that some others have been granted permission without insisting on any conditions as done in the case of the petitioner.

¶18

The 1^st respondent is represented by counsel. The counsel submits that he is yet to receive instructions from the respondent Panchayath.

¶19

In view of the facts and circumstances narrated above and the nature of the order that is proposed to be issued,

¶20

¶21

W.P.(C) No.3918 of 2022

¶22

there is no requirement to get instructions from the 1^st respondent Panchayat at this stage. In the interest of justice, the 1^st respondent is directed to re-consider the application submitted by the petitioner, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Necessary orders shall be passed within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶23

Exts.P2 and P3 orders shall be kept in abeyance for the purpose of proper consideration of issues.

Sd/-

T.R. RAVI

JUDGE

rpk

W.P.(C) No.3918 of 2022

¶30

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3918/2022

¶31

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 24.10.2019, BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER, DATED 3.5.2021 BY THE RESPONDENTS Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER , DATED 2.11.2021 BY THE RESPONDENTS

M.Y. Elias v. the Nenmeni Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Y. Elias v. the Nenmeni Grama Panchayath

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

Radhakrishna Kurup Vs Senior Geologist

R Unnikrishnan., Vs Senior Geologist

Biju @ Varghese P. K. Vs the Secretary

Vinod P R Vs Thiruvillwamala Grama Panchayath

Madhusoodanan R Vs Thiruvilwamala Grama Panchayath

Maimu Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector