Dismissed

Joseph Fencer v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Oct 2023WP(C)/3528/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In PIL filed by villagers of Kallamala, petitioners sought quashing of plans to construct Village Office at an isolated location and directed construction at an accessible site. Court held internal village disputes are not appropriate for PIL and refusal to direct construction unless public at large is affected.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with no direction to construct building in particular place.

Joseph Fencer Vs State of Kerala — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A.J.DESAI

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 26TH ASWINA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 3528 OF 2023

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

1 JOSEPH FENCER

¶9

AGED 83 YEARS
S/O. THOMAS, IRUVELIKKUNNEL, KALKANDI P.O., ATTAPPADI,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678582

¶10

2 JINU RAPHEL AGED 38 YEARS

¶11

S/O. RAPHEL, RAMACHANATT HOUSE, KALKANDI P.O., ATTAPPADI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678582

¶12

3 MARUTHAN,

¶13

AGED 45 YEARS

¶14

S/O. THOTHI MOOPPAN, KURAVANKANDI OORU, THAVALAM P.O.,
ATTAPPADI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678582

¶15

4 RAJU M. CHEMMANNOOR, AGED 45 YEARS S/O. H.C. MARUTHAN, OORUMOOPPAN, CHEMMANNOOR, KALKANDI P.O., ATTAPPADI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678582

¶16

5 RANKASWAMY AGED 45 YEARS S/O. RAMASWAMY, VISMAYA NIVAS, CHINDEKKI OORU MOOPPAN, CHENDEKKI P.O., ATTAPPADI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678582

¶17

6 NENCHAN AGED 55 YEARS S/O. RANKAN, KURAVANKANDI OORU, THAVALAM P.O., ATTAPPADI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678582

¶18

7 RAJAN AGED 50 YEARS S/O. CHINNAYYAN, AATTIYAKANDI OORU, THAVALAM P.O., ATTAPPADI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN – 678582

¶19

BY ADV LATHEESH SEBASTIAN
ADV. BINITHA JAMES

¶20

RESPONDENT/S:

¶21

1STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT

¶22

WP(C) NO. 3528 OF 2023

¶23

-2-

¶24

SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

¶25

2 THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

¶26

3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD, COLLECTORATE, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001

¶27

4 THE SUB COLLECTOR, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679101

¶28

5 THE TAHSILDAR, ATTAPPADI TALUK OFFICE, AGALI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678581

¶29

6 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KALLAMALA VILLAGE OFFICE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678582

¶30

 SR. GP. T.K.VIPINDAS

¶31

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 18.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

WP(C) NO. 3528 OF 2023

¶33

-3-

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

A.J.DESAI, C.J.

¶36

By way of the present petition filed in the nature of public interest, the following prayers have been made:

¶37

“i) Call for the records relating to Ext.P1 to P11 from the respondents;

¶38

ii) Quash Exhibit P8 and P11 communications and the decision of the respondents to construct office building of the Kallamala Village Office in the existing location by a writ of certiorari or any other writ or direction or order;

¶39

iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction to the respondents to consider the land in Survey No.602/2 of Kallamala village for the purpose of construction of the village office of Kallamala village by taking note of Ext.P3, P4 and P5;

¶40

iv) Exempt the petitioner from producing the English translation of vernacular documents;

¶41

v) Such other reliefs which is deemed to be fit and proper to this Hon’ble court in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶42

The grievance of some of the residents of the Kallamala

¶43

Village is that the construction of proposed Village Office of the

¶44

WP(C) NO. 3528 OF 2023

¶45

-4-

¶46

Kallamala Village is at a distance of 8 kms, in an isolated place, which may create difficulties to the villagers in reaching the office.

¶47

Having gone through the papers and the counter affidavit

¶48

filed by the respondents, it appears that some of the villagers want the new building to be put up at a place having more access to public transport, while another group is supporting the present proposal. We are of the opinion that the dispute among the villagers about the location of a building cannot be examined under public interest litigation. Even otherwise, it is not the function of this Court to direct any authority to construct or not to construct a building in a particular place, unless public at large is affected.

¶49

The writ petition is hence dismissed.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

A.J.DESAI

¶52

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

V.G.ARUN
JUDGE

¶55

¶56

18.10.2023

¶57

WP(C) NO. 3528 OF 2023

¶58

-5-

¶59

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3528/2023

¶60

`PETITIONER EXHIBIT`	`S`
`ExhibitP1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `FORM SUBMITTED B` `TOMY TO THE 4TH` `22.06.2022`	`LAND RELINQUISHMENT` `Y THE ABOVE SAID NISHA` `RESPONDENT DATED`
`ExhibitP2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `RESPONDENT DATED`	`REPORT OF THE 5TH` `26.10.2022`
`ExhibitP3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `RESPONDENT DATED`	`MAHAZER OF THE 6TH` `03.10.2022`
`ExhibitP4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `PREPARED BY THE` `03.10.2022`	`SKETCH OF THE LOCATION` `6TH RESPONDENT ON`
`ExhibitP5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `RESPONDENT DATED`	`REPORT OF THE 6TH` `03.10.2022`
`ExhibitP6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `RESPONDENT DATED` `RESPONDENT BEARI`	`LETTER OF THE 4TH` `11.11.2022 TO THE 5TH` `NG NO. F.6344/2022`
`ExhibitP7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `28.09.2022 OF TH` `WORKS DEPARTMENT`	`COMMUNICATION DATED` `E SECRETARY, PUBLIC`
`ExhibitP8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `RESPONDENT DATED` `PETITIONER`	`LETTER OF THE 3RD` `01.12.2022 TO THE 1ST`
`ExhibitP9`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `PETITIONERS DATE`	`REPRESENTATION OF THE` `D 15.12.2022`
`ExhibitP10`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `PETITIONER FROM` `HON'BLE REVENUE` `KERALA DATED 16.`	`LETTER RECEIVED BY THE` `THE OFFICE OF THE` `MINISTER, GOVERNMENT OF` `12.2022`
`ExhibitP11`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `RESPONDENT DATED`	`LETTER OF THE 3RD` `24.12.2022`
`Exhibit P12`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `03.10.2020`	`COMMUNICATION DATED`
`Exhibit P13`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `5TH RESPONDENT D` `THE RIGHT TO INF`	`LETTER ISSUED BY THE` `ATED 09.02.2023 UNDER` `ORMATION ACT`
`Exhibits P1 to P3` `and P5 to P13`	`English translat` `P3 and P5 to P13`	`ion of exhibits P1 to`

Joseph Fencer v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joseph Fencer v. State of Kerala

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

Prasanth Bhattathiri Vs State of Kerala

Meera R. Bhat, Vs State of Kerala

Ousephachan.P.P Vs State of Kerala

P.J. Navas Vs the Branch Manager

Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority, Vs Dr. Xavier Mathew

Santhosh Joseph Vs the Secretary to Government