Partly allowed

M.P.Francis v. Pala Municipality

Kerala HC2 Dec 2022WP(C)/4603/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the Secretary lacked power to regularize construction violating specific rules, granting the petitioner liberty to approach the State Government under Section 407 of the Kerala Municipality Act for regularization within one month.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to approach the State Government for regularization under Section 407 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, if application is made within one month.

M.P.Francis Vs Pala Municipality — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

W. P. (C) No. 10580 of 2014 & connected cases

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY FRIDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA,

¶6

1944

¶7

WP(C) NO. 10580 OF 2014

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

GEORGE THOMAS
NADACKAL HOUSE, ARUNAPURAM.P.O., PALA-686574,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.V.ASOKAN (SR.)
SRI.ARUN KUMAR.P

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 PALA MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE PALA MUNICIPALITY, PALA-686575.

¶12

2 THE SECRETARY OFFICE OF THE PALA MUNICIPALITY, PALA-686575.

¶13

3 THE MUNICIPAL ENGINEER

¶14

OFFICE OF THE PALA MUNICIPALITY, PALA-686575.

¶15

4 M.P. FRANCIS MANTHDADIYIL, ANUP VILLA, PURAKKAD.P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688561.

¶16

5 TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695035. BY ADVS. SRI.V.M.KURIAN, SC, PALA MUNICIPALITY SRI.SUJITH MATHEW JOSE, SC, PALA MUNICIPALITY SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR SRI.K.JAGADEESH SRI.RAAJESH S.SUBRAHMANIAN SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 02.12.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).16189/2015 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶18

W. P. (C) No. 10580 of 2014 & connected cases

¶19

-2-

¶20

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶21

PRESENT

¶22

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY FRIDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA,

¶23

1944

¶24

WP(C) NO. 11689 OF 2014

¶25

PETITIONER/S:

¶26

GEORGE THOMAS
NADACKAL HOUSE ARUNAPURAM P.O., PALA-686574,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.V.ASOKAN (SR.)
SRI.ARUN KUMAR.P

¶27

RESPONDENT/S:

¶28

1 PALA MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE PALA MUNICIPALITY, PALA-686575.

¶29

2 THE SECRETARY OFFICE OF THE PALA MUNICIPALITY, PALA-686575.

¶30

3 THE MUNCIPAL ENGINEER OFFICE OF THE PALA MUNICIPALITY, PALA-686575.

¶31

4 M.P.FRANCIS MANTHADIYIL ANUP VILLA, PURAKKAD P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN:688 561.

¶32

5 TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.V.M.KURIAN, SC, PALA MUNICIPALITY SRI.SUJITH MATHEW JOSE, SC, PALA MUNICIPALITY SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN

¶33

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 02.12.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).16189/2015 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶34

W. P. (C) No. 10580 of 2014 & connected cases

¶35

-3-

¶36

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶37

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY FRIDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA,

¶38

1944

¶39

WP(C) NO. 4603 OF 2015

¶40

PETITIONER/S:

¶41

M.P.FRANCIS
AGED 60 YEARS
SON OF POTHEN, ANOOP VILLA (MANTHADIYIL),
ARUNAPURAM P.O., PALA - 686 574.

¶42

BY ADVS.
SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN
SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR
SRI.K.JAGADEESH
SRI.RAAJESH S.SUBRAHMANIAN

¶43

RESPONDENT/S:

¶44

1 PALA MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PALA, KOTTAYAM 686 575.

¶45

2THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON, PALA
MUNICIPALITY, PALA, KOTTAYAM - 686 575.
3GEORGE THOMAS
SON OF THOMAS, NADACKAL HOUSE, ARUNAPURAM P.O.,
PALA, KOTTAYAM 686 574.
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.M.KURIAN, SC, PALA MUNICIPALITY
SRI.V.V.ASOKAN SR.
SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER
SRI.P.RAHUL
SRI.SUJITH MATHEW JOSE, SC, PALA MUNICIPALITY

¶46

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 02.12.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).16189/2015 AND
CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶47

W. P. (C) No. 10580 of 2014 & connected cases

¶48

-4-

¶49

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶50

PRESENT

¶51

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY FRIDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA,

¶52

1944

¶53

WP(C) NO. 16189 OF 2015

¶54

PETITIONER/S:

¶55

M.P.FRANCIS
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O.POTHEN, ANOOP VILLA (MANTHADIYIL),
ARUNAPURAMP.O. PALA - 686 574.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN
SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR
SRI.K.JAGADEESH

¶56

RESPONDENT/S:

¶57

1 PALA MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PALA, KOTTAYAM -686 575.

¶58

2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT (RD) DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶59

3GEORGE THOMAS
S/O.THOMAS, NADACKAL HOUSE, ARUNAPURAM P.O.,
PALA,KOTTAYAM - 686 574.
By ADVS.
SRI.V.M.KURIAN, SC, PALA MUNICIPALITY
MAYANKUTTY MATHER K.I
SRI.SUJITH MATHEW JOSE, SC, PALA MUNICIPALITY
UTHARA ASOKAN(K/001361/2020)

¶60

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 02.12.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).4603/2015,
10580/2014 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶61

W. P. (C) No. 10580 of 2014 & connected cases

¶62

-5-

¶63

J U D G M E N T

¶64

(W. P. (C) Nos. 10580 & 11689 of 2014 and 4603 & 16189 of 2015)

¶65

The above writ petitions are materially connected in respect of utilizing a multi-storied building belonging to the petitioner in W. P. (C) Nos. 10580 and 11689 of 2014 in A2 group under Rule 30 (3), dealing with special residential buildings of the Kerala Municipality building Rules, 1999; whereas the permit of the building was secured by the said person for residential accommodation guided by A1 group under Rule 30 (3) of Rules 1999.

¶66

Apparently, consequent to a complaint filed by one M. P. Francis, petitioner in W. P. (C) Nos. 4603 and 16189 of 2015, Secretary of Pala Municipality has initiated action against the building owner in terms of Section 406 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 for unauthorised construction. After complying with the procedural formalities contained under sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 406, the Secretary of the Municipality has passed a final order dated 21.01.2013 under Section 406(3) directing the building owner to demolish the unauthorized construction.

¶67

Challenging the said order, the building owner has preferred

¶68

W. P. (C) No. 10580 of 2014 & connected cases

¶69

-6-

¶70

appeal No. 303 of 2013 before the tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. The tribunal, after considering the rival submissions of all the parties including the complainant Sri. M. P. Francis, has upheld the order of the Secretary and dismissed the appeal. However the building owner was given the liberty to file an application for regularization before the Secretary of the Municipality. Accordingly, petitioner has submitted an application for regularization which was dismissed as per an order dated 22.03.2014. It is thus challenging the legality and correctness of Ext. P9 W. P. (C) No. 10580 of 2014 is filed.

¶71

W. P. (C) No. 11689 of 2014 is filed by the building owner challenging the order passed by the tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions dated 07.04.2014 in I. A. No. 1901 of 2013 in appeal No. 303 of 2013, whereby the review of the main order sought for by the building owner was dismissed.

¶72

The Municipality and the party respondent namely the complainant have filed counter affidavits basically supporting Ext. P9 order passed by the Secretary.

¶73

The Municipality has initiated action against the building

¶74

W. P. (C) No. 10580 of 2014 & connected cases

¶75

-7-

¶76

owner for the basic reason that a residential building constructed by the petitioner guided by the requirements in group A1 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 is utilised as group A2 as per the Rules, 1999. According to the Municipality, the entire specifications and the infrastructure to be provided for a building under group A2 is different from the one provided for a residential building under group A1. It is the specific case of the Municipality that petitioner is utilizing the building to conduct a hostel to accommodate the students of a tuition and coaching centre at Pala.

¶77

In fact the Municipality in its order dated 21.01.2013 has found out violation of various Rules, however except the requirement for parking space for a building under A2 group all other violations are rectified by the building owner. Therefore according to the Secretary of the Municipality, since Rule is violated, the Secretary is not vested with powers to regularize the construction and therefore the building owner has to approach the State Government.

¶78

I find force in the said contention because as per Rule 143 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999, though the Secretary is vested with powers to regularize certain constructions, the Secretary

¶79

W. P. (C) No. 10580 of 2014 & connected cases

¶80

-8-

¶81

cannot regularize any construction if it is done in violation of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 and the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994. But as per Section 407 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, the Government is vested with powers notwithstanding anything contained under the Act to regularize any building construction in violation of the Rules on realization of compounding fee as prescribed.

¶82

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Smt. Parvathy, learned Standing Counsel for the Pala Municipality Sri. Sujith Mathew Jose, learned Senior Government Pleader Sri. Joby Joseph and Sri. P. B. Sahasranaman for the party respondent Sri. M. P. Francis and perused the pleadings and material on record.

¶83

The sole question to be considered is whether there is any illegality or arbitrariness in Ext. P9 order dated 22.03.2014 passed by the Secretary of the Municipality declining regularization since the construction violates Rule 34, Rule 104(2) and Rule 53 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999.

¶84

Even though learned counsel for the owner submitted that since students are accommodated in the rooms, that can only be treated

¶85

W. P. (C) No. 10580 of 2014 & connected cases

¶86

-9-

¶87

as residential occupancy, I am of the view that the said contention has no force at all in view of the peculiar manner in which Group A1 residential building and Group A2 special residential building are dealt with under the Rules 1999. The said groups provided under Rule 30(3) of the Rules, 1999 reads thus:-

¶88

“(a) Group A1. - Residential Building shall include any building in which sleeping accommodation is provided for normal residential purposes, with or without cooking and or dining facilities. They shall include one or multifamily dwellings, apartment houses or residential flats. Small professional offices or spaces for advocates, doctors, engineers, architects, chartered accountants, beauticians, tailors, photographers, videographers, telephone booth operator, computer professionals, typists, electrical or electronic equipment service professionals, not exceeding 50 sq. metres floor area and used as part of principal residential occupancy are also included in this group.

¶89

(b) Group A2. - Special Residential building shall include all lodging or rooming houses, dormitories, tourist homes, hostels, hotels with or without conference halls, community halls, dining halls or assembly rooms. Creches, day care centres, children's nursery, reading rooms, libraries and educational buildings not exceeding 150 sq. metres floor area are also included in this group.”

¶90

Therefore, it is categoric and clear that the accommodation

¶91

W. P. (C) No. 10580 of 2014 & connected cases

¶92

-10-

¶93

provided by the building owner to the students of the coaching centre would come under Group A2 being a hostel; whereas it is clearly specified in group A1, what all things that can be undertaken in a residential building; however running of a hostel is not included therein so as to secure the advantage of a lesser consequential requirements than provided under Group A2.

¶94

Anyhow it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that subsequently the Secretary Pala Municipality has issued a notice dated 11.10.2022 produced as Ext. R3(l) along with the counter affidavit stating that the petitioner shall produce necessary documents to treat the building as one constructed under A2 group of Rules, 1999. It is admitted by the Municipality that apart from the violation of providing sufficient parking area for an A2 category building, all other defects noted by the Secretary of the Municipality are rectified by the building owner.

¶95

But still, as the Rule in respect of the requirement of the parking area is not complied with by the building owner, the violation of the Building Rules, 1999 is still remaining and therefore the construction cannot be regularized by the Secretary of the

¶96

W. P. (C) No. 10580 of 2014 & connected cases

¶97

-11-

¶98

Municipality, having no power to do so. Therefore it can be seen that the building owner has not made out a case for interference with the impugned order there being no arbitrariness or illegality to exercise the power under article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶99

But fact remains, by virtue of the powers conferred under Section 407 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, periodical notifications are issued by the State Government in order to regularize unauthorised and illegal constructions. I am informed that a notification was issued in the year 2014 setting out the Rules for regularizing the constructions after realizing compounding fees.

¶100

In that view of the matter, I think it is only appropriate that the liberty of the building owner is left open to approach the State Government for regularisation in terms of any notification / rules issued under Section 407 of Act 1994. If the building owner is making any application before the Government within one month from today, it shall be finalized by the State Government within three months from the date of receipt of the application from the petitioner after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the Secretary of the Municipality and Sri. M. P. Francis, the complainant.

¶101

W. P. (C) No. 10580 of 2014 & connected cases

¶102

-12-

¶103

But I make it clear that if the petitioner is not making any application in accordance with the directions contained above, the Secretary of the Municipality would be at liberty to proceed on the basis of the order dated 22.03.2014 produced as Ext. P9 in W. P. (C) No. 10580 of 2014, in accordance with law.

¶104

When the writ petition filed by the building owner was admitted to the files of this Court, an interim order of stay of the impugned Exhibit P9 order passed by Secretary was granted by this Court for a period of six weeks which was being periodically extended and extended until further orders on 23.10.2014. In order to enable the building owner to comply with the directions contained above, the said interim order granted by this Court would continue to be in force for a period of five months or till the date of passing the order as directed above. But I make it clear that if the petitioner does not comply with the direction for submitting the application within one month from today, the said order would stand vacated.

¶105

Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. M. P. Francis submitted that the writ petition filed by him as W. P. (C) No. 16189 of 2015 has become infructuous and therefore the petitioner may be permitted to

¶106

W. P. (C) No. 10580 of 2014 & connected cases

¶107

-13-

¶108

withdraw the said writ petition.

¶109

Therefore, the said writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. The

¶110

rest of the writ petitions are disposed of in terms of the findings

¶111

rendered above.

¶112

Sd/SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶113

¶114

///TRUE COPY/// P. A. TO JUDGE

¶115

W. P. (C) No. 10580 of 2014 & connected cases

¶116

-14-

¶117

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10580/2014

¶118

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶119

EXHIBIT P1COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT ALONG WITH
THE PLAN.
EXHIBIT P2COPY OF ORDER IN O.S. NO. 213/2011 OF
TRHE MUNSIFF COURT, PALA.
EXHIBIT P3COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 5TH
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 5TH
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6COPY OF REVIEW PETITION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF PLAN.
EXHIBIT P7(A)COPY OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8COPY OF SWRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P9COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.

¶120

W. P. (C) No. 10580 of 2014 & connected cases

¶121

-15-

¶122

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11689/2014

¶123

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶124

EXHIBIT P1COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT ALONG WITH
PLAN.

¶125

EXHIBIT P2COPY OF ORDER IN OS NO.213/2011 OF THE
MUNSIFF COURT, PALA DATED 21.11.2011.
EXHIBIT P3COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 5TH
RESPONDENT DATED 22.5.2012.
EXHIBIT P4COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 21.10.2013.
EXHIBIT P5COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 5TH
RESPONDENT DATED 13.9.2013.

¶126

EXHIBIT P6COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT
DATED 13.10.2013.
EXHIBIT P7COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF PLAN.
EXHIBIT P8COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY THE 5TH
RESPONDENT.

¶127

W. P. (C) No. 10580 of 2014 & connected cases

¶128

-16-

¶129

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4603/2015

¶130

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶131

`EXHIBIT P1`	`TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE` `TRIBUNAL FOR GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION, IN` `APPEAL NO.303/2012 DATED 13/9/2013.`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`TRUE PHOTOSAT COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER` `IN WPC NO.10580 OF 2014, DATED 29TH` `APRIL, 2014 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT`
`EXHIBIT P3`	`TRUE PHOTOSAT COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER` `IN WPC NO.10580 OF 2014, DATED 19TH` `DECEMBER, 2014 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT`
`EXHIBIT P4`	`TRUE PHOTOSAT COPY OF THE NOTICE SENT BY` `THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD` `RESPONDENT, DATED 23/12/2014, ALONG WITH` `ENGLISH TRANSLATION`
`EXHIBIT P5`	`TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER NO.H3-` `5276/12, DATED 1/1/2006 OF THE 1ST` `RESPONDENT, ALONG WITH ENGLISH` `TRANSLATION`
`EXHIBIT P6`	`TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER IN WPC` `NO.56/2015 DATED 5/1/2015.`
`EXHIBIT P7`	`TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE` `2ND RESPONDENT MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE,` `ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION, ALONG` `WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION, DATED` `12/1/2015.`
`EXHIBIT P8`	`TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE MINUTES OF` `THE SAID MEETING HELD ON 5/10/2013,` `ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION`
`EXHIBIT P9`	`TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COUNTER-` `AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN` `WPC 10580/2014, DATED 24/7/2014.`

¶132

W. P. (C) No. 10580 of 2014 & connected cases

¶133

-17-

¶134

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16189/2015

¶135

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶136

EXHIBIT P1TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER NO.BA-
329/05-06 DATED 21.1.2013 ISSUED BY THE
IST RESPONDENT

¶137

EXHIBIT P2A TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE SAID ORDER
OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF
GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION, IN APPEAL NO.303
OF 2013, DATED 13.9.2013
EXHIBIT P3TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER BA
329/05-06, DATED 22.3.2014 ISSUED BY THE
IST RESPONDENT

¶138

EXHIBIT P4TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE KERALA
MUNICIPAL (REGULARIZATION) OF
UNAUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION) RULES, 2010,
PUBLISHED IN THE KERALA GAZETTE, EXTRA,
VOL.3, DATED 17.2.2014
EXHIBIT P5TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE COMPLAINT
FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST
RESPONDENT, DATED 14.5.2015
EXHIBIT P6TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER DATED
01-12-2020 ALONG WITH REPORT OF THE
VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT OF THE LOCAL SELF
GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION.

¶139

`EXHIBIT P7` `RESPONDENT EXHIB`	`TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE TOWN PLANNER,` `KOTTAYAM HAS SENT A DETAILED REPORT TO` `THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER,` `THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ON 20-07-2022.` `ITS`
`EXHIBIT R3(A)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE PARTIAL OCCUPANCY` `CERTIFICATE DATED 04.07.2008 ISSUED BY` `THE PALA MUNICIPALITY`
`EXHIBIT R3(B)`	`TRUE COPY THE ONE TIME BUILDING TAX` `ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE` `TAHSILDAR, MEENACHIL DATED 12.01.2015`
`EXHIBIT R3(C)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL OPINION DATED` `12.11.2015 OBTAINED BY ME UNDER THE` `RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT`
`EXHIBIT R3(D)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE 3RD` `RESPONDENT IN THE WRIT PETITION TO THE` `1ST RESPONDENT DATED 12.04.2021.`
`EXHIBIT R3(E)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE RENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN` `THE PETITIONER AND THE TENANT (ANANTHU` `MOHAN) DATED 10.04.2021.`

¶140

W. P. (C) No. 10580 of 2014 & connected cases

¶141

-18-

¶142

`EXHIBIT R3(F)`	`TRUE COPY` `THE PETITI` `ANN MOFT A` `10.04.2021`	`OF THE` `ONER AN` `ND SREE` `.`	`RENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN` `D THE TENANT (MICHEL` `THU M.S.PILLA) DATED`
`EXHIBIT R3(G)`	`TRUE COPY` `BY THE ASS` `PALA MUNIC`	`OF THE` `ISTANT` `IPALITY`	`INSPECTION REPORT GIVEN` `EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,` `DATED 16.03.2021.`
`EXHIBIT R3(H)`	`TRUE COPY` `MUNICIPALI`	`OF THE` `TY DATE`	`NOTICE ISSUED BY THE` `D 18.12.2021`
`EXHIBIT R3(I)`	`TRUE COPY` `RESPONDENT`	`OF THE` `DATED`	`PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST` `31.10.2009`
`EXHIBIT R3(J)`	`TRUE COPY` `SUBMITTED` `MUNICIPALI` `DIRECTOR,` `KOLLAM`	`OF THE` `BY THE` `TY TO T` `MUNICIP`	`REPORT DATED 20.7.2011` `SECRETARY, PALA` `HE REGIONAL JOINT` `ALITY DEPARTMENT,`
`EXHIBIT R3(K)`	`TRUE COPY` `11.10.2022`	`OF THE` `ISSUED`	`NOTICE H3-5276/12 DATED` `BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT`
`EXHIBIT R3(L)`	`TRUE COPY` `DATED 11.1` `RESPONDENT`	`OF THE` `0.2022`	`NOTICE BA-329/05-06` `ISSUED BY THE 1ST`
`EXHIBIT R3(M)`	`TRUE COPY` `RESPONDENT` `NOTICE`	`OF THE` `DATED`	`REPLY GIVEN BY THE 3RD` `15.10.2022 TO EXT.R3(J)`
`EXHIBIT R3(N)`	`TRUE COPY` `RESPONDENT` `NOTICE`	`OF THE` `DATED`	`REPLY GIVEN BY THE 3RD` `15.10.2022 TO EXT.R3(K)`

M.P.Francis v. Pala Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.P.Francis v. Pala Municipality

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

A.D.Joshy Vs State of Kerala

The Little Sisters of St. Theresa of Lisieux Vs the District Collector, Kannur

Subin Jacob, Represented by His Power of Attorney Holder Dennis Edassery Vs the Secretary, Vazhakkulam Grama Panchayat

Mini.I.P Vs Joby .a.J

Aniyan Yohannan Vs State of Kerala

T.Ayyappan Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation