Disposed

Jose T.J. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Jul 2023WP(C)/5298/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the District Collector to consider a petitioners' representation regarding a demolition order for a constructed pathway after a hearing, and restrained authorities from enforcing the order pending the decision.

What did the court decide?

Directions to the District Collector to decide within three months after a hearing, and restraint on enforcing demolition orders pending such decision.

Jose T.J. Vs State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF JULY 2023 / 19TH ASHADHA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 5298 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 JOSE T.J. AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.JACOB C.T., THATTIL HOUSE, MANASERRY, MUKKOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT PIN 673 602 2 P.CHANDRAN AGED 72 YEARS, S/O.KELU, NANDANAM VEEDU, MANASERRY, MUKKOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT PIN 673 602 3 DIJITH V. AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.KUNJAN, VALLARAPPALIYIL VEEDU, MANASERRY, MUKKOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT PIN 673 602 4 MOHANAN V. AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.ARUMUGHAN, VELUTHEDATH HOUSE, MANASERRY, MUKKOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT PIN 673 602 5 VINOD V. AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.ARUMUGHAN, VELUTHEDATH HOUSE, MANASERRY, MUKKOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT PIN 673 602 6 DILJITH AGED 31 YEARS, S/O.VASUDEVAN, VELLARAPALIYIL VEEDU, MANASERRY, MUKKOM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT PIN 673 602 BY ADV K.K.JYOTHILAKSHMY

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA REP.BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 001

¶10

2 SECRETARY MUKKAM MUNICIPALITY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT PIN 673 602

¶11

3 CHAIRMAN DISTRICT DISASTER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE.

¶12

4 MUNICIPAL ENGINEER MUKKAM MUNICIPALITY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT PIN 673 602

¶13

5 HEALTH INSPECTOR (GRADE -I), MUKKAM MUNICIPALITY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT PIN 673 602 BY ADV SHRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

ADV SAROJINI -GP

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶17

10.07.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

W.P(C) No.5298 of 2021

¶19

..2..

¶20

J U D G M E N T Dated this the 10 th day of July, 2023

¶21

The petitioners herein are the residents of Manaseri –

¶22

Mukkom. The petitioners submit that in front of the properties of the petitioners there is Vattoli Parambu-Pulparambu thodu and because of the lie of the thodu, people are finding it difficult to reach the main road. Several representations and requests were made by the petitioners before the respondents but nothing had been considered. Hence, the petitioners along with other people in the locality collected some amount and constructed a pathway over the thodu in the private land.

¶23

2 . On knowing this, the then Secretary to the 2 nd respondent filed a report to the 3 rd respondent stating that there is obstruction to the flow of water in the thodu. On the basis of the report, the 3 rd respondent, without hearing the petitioners or without inspecting the site, issued Ext.P5 Order

¶24

W.P(C) No.5298 of 2021

¶25

..3..

¶26

directing the 2 nd respondent to demolish the construction. On the basis of Ext.P5, the 2 nd respondent has issued Ext.P7 order. The petitioners are aggrieved by Exts.P5 and P7.

¶27

2 . The grievance of the petitioners is regarding Ext.P5 order which directs demolition of construction of a pathway which is beneficial to the general public. Taking into consideration the fact that the grievance is regarding a pathway, it would be only appropriate that the 3 rd respondent considers the issue and take a decision in the matter.

¶28

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3 rd respondent - Chairman, District Disaster Management Authority & District Collector, Kozhikode to consider Ext.P6 petition submitted by the petitioners and take appropriate decision thereon after giving an opportunity of hearing to one or two representatives of the petitioners. The decision in this regard shall be taken within a period of three months. There will be a further direction to the Municipal authorities not to enforce Exts.P5

¶29

W.P(C) No.5298 of 2021

¶30

..4..

¶31

and P7 till the District Collector takes a final decision in the

¶32

matter, as directed above.

¶33

Sd/N. NAGARESH JUDGE

¶34

¶35

W.P(C) No.5298 of 2021

¶36

..5..

¶37

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5298/2021

¶38

PETITION	ER EXH	IBITS
EXHIBIT	P1	THE TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH SHOWING THE LIE OF THE PROPERTIES OF THE PETITIONERS
EXHIBIT	P2	TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PATHWAY
EXHIBIT	P3	TRUE COPY OF THE 3RD PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PATHEWAY
EXHIBIT	P4	THE TRUE COPY OF THE 3RD PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PATHWAY
EXHIBIT	P5	THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.DM/230/2021-F6, DATED 10.2.2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P6	REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P7	THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E1- 2803/2021 DATED 22.2.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P8	THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY, DATED 26.2.2021 RECEIVED FROM THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT	P9	THE TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION, DATED 19.2.2021 APPROVED AND SIGNED BY THE COUNCILOR OF WARD NO.24 OF THE MUKKOM MUNICIPALITY.

Jose T.J. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jose T.J. 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

Rajani K.C Vs the District Geologist

Shiju Kuriakose, Vs State of Kerala

Johnson Km S/O Varkey Mathai Vs State of Kerala

Anas .T Vs District Collector

Anirudhan, Vs the District Geologist

Abdul Majeed, Vs State of Kerala