Dismissed

Arvind Singhal, v. the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions

Kerala HC13 Jul 2023WP(C)/11898/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a petitioner aggrieved by an order requiring demolition of alleged illegal construction. After hearing counsel, the Court held that since the petitioner has approached the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions under the Kerala Municipality Act, the writ petition must be relegated to that forum. Consequently, the petition was disposed of per

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to prosecute the appeal preferred before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions.

Arvind Singhal, Vs the Ombudsman for… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 22ND ASHADHA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 11898 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ARVIND SINGHAL,

¶8

AGED 48 YEARS, S/O D N SINGAL, 42/NANDANKUNJU, UDAYA
NAGAR, KATHRIKADAVU, KALOOR P.O, KOCHI, PIN - 682017
BY ADVS.
SHERRY J. THOMAS
JOEMON ANTONY
ANTONY NILTON REMELO

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN FOR LSG, BARTONS BILL BUNGALOW, KUNNUKUZHI, VANCHIYOOR P.O, THIRUVANTHAPURAM., PIN – 695 037

¶11

2 THE SECRETARY COCHIN CORPORATION, PARK AVENUE ROAD, MARINE DRIVE, KOCHI, PIN – 682 011

¶12

3 ASSISTANT ENGINEER LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, COCHIN CORPORATION, PARK AVENUE ROAD, MARINE DRIVE, KOCHI, PIN – 682 011

¶13

4 MATHA NAGAR RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY, REGISTER NO. ER/1112/11, 63/657, KIZHAKKEL, SALIM-RAJAN ROAD, KOCHI, PIN – 682 017

¶14

5 COCHIN CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PARK AVENUE ROAD, MARINE DRIVE, KOCHI, PIN – 682 011

¶15

BY ADVS.
N.D.PREMACHANDRAN
C.N.PRABHAKARAN
D.AJITHKUMAR(K/3101/1999)
SRI.JANARDHANA SHENOY – SC
SMT.AMMINIKUTTY – SR.GP

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.07.2023,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

W.P(C) NO.11898 OF 2023

¶18

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Dated this the 13^th day of July, 2023

¶21

The petitioner approached this Court aggrieved by

¶22

Ext.P7 order issued by the Corporation which required the petitioner to demolish the alleged illegal construction made by the petitioner.

¶23

When this writ petition came up for admission, this

¶24

Court passed an interim order on 03.04.2023, which was extended from time to time.

¶25

During the course of the proceedings, the petitioner approached the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions impugning Ext.P7.

¶26

The Standing Counsel representing the Cochin Corporation as well as the counsel representing the 4^th respondent opposed the writ petition and pointed out that the petitioner has blatantly violated the Kerala Municipal Building

¶27

W.P(C) NO.11898 OF 2023

¶28

3

¶29

Rules and has made unauthorised constructions having five shutters and has disobeyed rule of law. In the circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief from this Court.

¶30

The Counsel for the 4^th respondent submitted that

¶31

the delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching the Tribunal cannot be condoned.

¶32

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 2, 3 and 5 and the learned counsel for the 4^th respondent.

¶33

In view of the fact that the petitioner has availed his

¶34

statutory remedy under the Kerala Municipality Act against Ext.P7 order of the Corporation, I am of the view that the petitioner should be relegated to the Tribunal for prosecuting his claim.

¶35

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to prosecute the appeal preferred before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions.

¶36

W.P(C) NO.11898 OF 2023

¶37

4

¶38

The petitioner submits that since there is delay in approaching the Tribunal, the Tribunal has not so far numbered the appeal. The petitioner would submit that since the petitioner has been bona fide prosecuting the case before a wrong forum, the period during which the writ petition has been pending before this Court is liable to be excluded. This is a matter to be considered by the Tribunal while hearing the appeal.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE

ded

W.P(C) NO.11898 OF 2023

¶43

¶44

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11898/2023

¶45

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶46

EXHIBIT P 1THE TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT OF TAX, DATED
25.3.2022
EXHIBIT P 2THE TRUE OF THE LETTER DATED 4.11.2022,
WITH LETTER NO.KRP 2-3782/22
EXHIBIT P3THE TRUE COPY OF THE COPY OF PETITION
DATED 15.11.2022
EXHIBIT P4THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED
20.3.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4ATHE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED
21.3.2023
EXHIBIT P5THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11-1-
2023 OF OMBUDSMAN
EXHIBIT P6THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED TO
THE OMBUDSMAN SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT SECRETARY, DATED 27-3-2023
EXHIBIT P7THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27-3-
2023 ,WITH REFERENCE NO. KRP2/3782/22
EXHIBIT P8THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28-3-
2023
EXHIBIT P8ATHE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NUMBERED
AS 15552 WITH REFERENCE NO. 12143 DATED
30-3-2023

¶47

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶48

EXHIBIT R4 (A)TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
7.10.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT BEFORE THE SECRETARY COCHIN
CORPORATION
EXHIBIT R4 (B)TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT DATED 19/10/2022

Arvind Singhal, v. the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Singhal, v. the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions

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

Jabir Vs the District Collector

K Sunilkumar Vs Food Corporation of India

Vipin Kaithakottil Vs Vishnuraj .P. IAS

K.V. Sasidharan Nair S/O Velayudhan Nair Vs 1. Pampady Grama Panchayat, Represented by Its Secretary

Anjali Ravindran Vs the Erumely Grama Panchayat Represented by Its Secretary

Deepu Suresh Vs District Geologist