Disposed

O.Y. Pathrose, v. District Panchayat

Kerala HC2 Mar 2023WP(C)/34447/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed seeking direction to complete road construction. Court noted 4th respondent had no objection to completing further work as NOC was subsequently granted. Petitioner undertook to complete work within three months. Petition disposed of accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; construction to be completed within three months as undertaken by respondent.

O.Y. Pathrose, Vs District Panchayat — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 11TH PHALGUNA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 34447 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

O.Y. PATHROSE, AGED 68 YEARS S/O. ITTUPPU, OLANGATTU EDAKKERIL, PINARMUNDA, PERINGALA P.O, KUMARAPURAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 565. BY ADVS. PAUL K.VARGHESE A.A.GEETHA K.P.S.JALALUDDEEN MOHMMED

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 DISTRICT PANCHAYAT, NEAR AIRPORT ROAD, CIVIL STATION, THRIKKAKARA, KAKKANAD, KERALA 682030, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2 THE SECRETARY, DISTRICT PANCHAYAT, NEAR, AIRPORT ROAD, CIVIL STATION, THRIKKAKARA, KAKKANAD, KERALA 682030 3 THE KUNNATHUNADU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KUMARAPURAM, PALLIKKARA-683565 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 4 THE SECRETARY, KUNNATHUNADU GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KUMARAPURAM, PALLIKKARA-683565. 5 ADDL.R5 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM [ADDL.R5 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 06.02.2023 IN WP(C) 34447/2022] BY ADVS.MOHAMMED SIYAD M F ABRAHAM P.MEACHINKARA (SC)

¶10

OTHER PRESENT:

¶11

GP SRI. SYAMANTHK-GP

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

W.P.(C). No.34447 of 2022

: 2 :

VIJU ABRAHAM, J.

- - - - Dated this the 2^nd day of March, 2023

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Above writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to complete the entire remaining work of the road by name S.N. Junction and Aniankara Road in Pinarmunda Kara within the limits of Ward No.XVI of Kunnathunadu Grama Panchayath.

¶20

The contention of the 1^st respondent is that, the Executive Engineer attached to the 4^th respondent Panchayat has issued a stop memo for the reason that no objection certificate was not obtained by the 1^st respondent before undertaking the construction of the road.

¶21

3.The learned counsel for the 4^th respondent Panchayat would submit that the stop memo has been issued for the reason that the 1^st respondent has undertaken the construction of the road which was in a proper motorable condition. Since it was tarred only in the year 2019, there was no requirement for a reconstruction. The work was undertaken even without obtaining a no objection certificate from the 4^th respondent.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶23

W.P.(C). No.34447 of 2022

¶24

: 3 :

¶25

When the matter came up for consideration on 15.02.2023, the learned counsel for the 4^th respondent submitted that they have absolutely no objection in completing the further construction of the road, but the 1^st respondent did not seek for a no objection certificate from the 4^th respondent, before starting the work. It is seen that, thereafter the 1^st respondent has sought for an NOC and consequently the same has been granted by the 4^th respondent. What remains now is within what time the work could be completed by the 1^st respondent. The learned Standing Counsel for the 1^st respondent submitted that due to the stop memo issued, the earlier contractor has abandoned the work and they need some more time to tender the work again. It is undertaken by the 1^st respondent that the construction of the road will be completed within a period of three months from today. The said submission is recorded. The contention of the 4^th respondent regarding the removal of soil etc., as part of the construction of the road is left open to be agitated in appropriate proceedings.

¶26

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE

¶29

sm/

¶30

W.P.(C). No.34447 of 2022

¶31

: 4 :

¶32

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 34447/2022

¶33

PETITIONER's EXHIBITS

¶34

Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ESTIMATE REPORT FOR MAINTENANCE OF S.N. JUNCTION, ANEKARA ROAD PREFERRED BY THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT DATED 17.2.2022 . Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE KUNNATHUNADU GRAMA PANCHAYAT DATED 26.2.2022. Exhibit P3 A TRUE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PRESENT CONDITION OF THE ROAD.

¶35

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

¶36

Exhibit R3 (A) True copy of the resolution No. 1(1) dated 1-4-2022 is produced Exhibit R3 (B) True copy of the letter No. Al/1777/2022 dated 13-4-2022 requesting Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) for inquiry. Exhibit R3 (C) True copy of the letter No. G/2557/2022/EKM dated 6-5-2022 issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Ernakulam Exhibit R3 (D) True copy of the letter No. Al/1777 /2022 dated 12-5-2022 to the Director, Vigilance and Anti - Corruption Bureau, Thiruvanthapuram

O.Y. Pathrose, v. District Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

O.Y. Pathrose, v. District Panchayat

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

Sasidharan, Vs the Kerala State Pollution Control Board

Abdul Azeez Vs Adoor Municipality

Thankamma P P Vs State of Kerala

Xavier Thomas, Vs Kochi Municipal Corporation

Laya Jose P.J. Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

Aji Vs the Secretary