Dismissed

Avanur Grama Panchayath v. M/S. Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited

Kerala HC4 Sept 2023WP(C)/28256/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed the writ petition as no direction to issue a building permit required compliance upon the first respondent's expressed disinclination to proceed with the business. Liberty was reserved for the petitioner in future eventuality.

What did the court decide?

The direction in Ext.P5 to issue a building permit need not be complied with. Liberty reserved.

Avanur Grama Panchayath Vs M/S. Reliance Jio… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 13TH BHADRA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 28256 OF 2016

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

AVANUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, AVANUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, VELAPPAYA, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.C.A.ANOOP SMT.C.K.REMANY

¶9

RESPONDENTS :

¶10

1 M/S. RELIANCE JIO INFOCOMM LIMITED, PUKKALAKKATTU KARIYATTU TOWER, NEAR YATHRI NIVAS, MAMANGALAM, PALARIVATTOM, COCHIN - 682 025 REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, MR.VINOD GIYAL, THE STATE HEAD, M/S.RELIANCE JIO INFOCOMM. LTD., KERALA CIRCLE.

¶11

2 THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.KURYAN THOMAS

¶13

BY SMT.G.SHEEBA, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING :

¶15

WP(C) NO. 28256 OF 2016

¶16

¶17

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

¶18

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶19

W.P.(C) No.28256 of 2016

¶20

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶21

Dated this the 4^th day of September, 2023

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

By Ext.P5 order, the Secretary of the Panchayath was directed to issue building permit to the first respondent. The learned counsel for the first respondent has intimated its disinclination to go forward with the proposed business. Therefore, the direction in Ext.P5 is not required to be complied with.

¶24

Hence, this writ petition is closed recording that the direction in Ext.P5 to issue a building permit need not be complied with in view of the submission made on behalf of the first respondent. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach this Court again in the event of any eventuality arising out of Ext.P5.

¶25

Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE

¶26

RKM

¶27

WP(C) NO. 28256 OF 2016

¶28

¶29

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28256/2016

¶30

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :

¶31

Exhibit R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 16/01/2020 FOR TERMINATION OF LEASE DEAD ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER HERE IN TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY.

¶32

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

¶33

EXHIBIT-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MASS PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE RESIDENTS IN THE LOCALITY TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR WITH COPY TO THE PETITIONER.

¶34

EXHIBIT-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.23.5.16 SUBMITTED BY THE CONVENOR OF THE COMMITTEE TO THE PETITIONER PANCHAYATH

¶35

EXHIBIT-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.5.2016 FORWARDING A COPY OF EXT.P2 TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR.

¶36

EXHIBIT-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25.5.2016 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶37

EXHIBIT-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.7.2016 IN APPEAL NO.521/2016 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS.

Avanur Grama Panchayath v. M/S. Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avanur Grama Panchayath v. M/S. Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited

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

A.G.Raj Vs Inspector of Police

Mr.Praveen K.P. @ Praveen Rana, Vs the State of Kerala

Antony Vs State of Kerala

Thea Lifestyle Pvt.Ltd. Vs the Tahsildar (Land Records)

Anto Paul Mampilly Vs the Corporation of Kochi

Aboobacker K I Vs State of Kerala