Allowed

N. Sundareshan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Feb 2024WP(C)/1974/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner alleged neighbours were misusing their residential building for religious activity and sought directions to the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation to act. The court held this raised a pure factual dispute unsuited to Article 226 jurisdiction and left liberty to approach the District Collector.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to move the District Collector within two weeks, who shall hear the parties and decide expeditiously, not later than one month thereafter.

N. Sundareshan Vs State of Kerala — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 20TH MAGHA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 1974 OF 2024

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

N. SUNDARESHAN, AGED 83 YEARS, S/O. LATE P.V
NEELAKANDAN, RETIRED UNDER SECRATARY, RESIDING
AT SREERAGAM, HOUSE NO. MRA 134, MOONNAMOODU,
VATTIYOORKAVU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695013

¶8

BY ADVS.
MAJIDA.S
AJIKHAN.M
MUHAMMED SUHAIL K.H.

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001

¶11

2 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, VIKAS BHAVAN, LMS VELLAYAMBALAM ROAD, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695033

¶12

3 COUNCIL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY MAYOR, CORPORATION OFFICE, VIKAS BHAVAN, LMS VELLAYAMBALAM ROAD, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695033

¶13

4 LILLY T.C, AGED 73 YEARS, W/O REMANAN, RESIDING AT 1157 SNEHA, PARUTTUKONAM, NALANJIRA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN – 695015

¶14

5 REMANAN, AGED 75 YEARS, S/O LATE G. DAMODARAN RESIDING AT 1157 SNEHA, PARUTTUKONAM, NALANJIRA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695015

¶15

BY ADVS.
SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY
LINDONS C.DAVIS
E.U.DHANYA(K/672/2006)
N.S.SHAMILA(K/222/2016)
CHINJU P. JOYIES(K/894/2016)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC 1974/24

JUDGMENT

The petitioner alleges that respondents 4 and 5 are misusing

¶21

the residential occupancy of the building in question, by converting it to a centre of religious activity. He, therefore, prays that respondents 2 and 3 – the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation and its Council respectively be directed to take appropriate action against the said respondents, including by issuing them a ‘Stop Memo’ ‘for conducting religious classes in a residential building’ (sic).

¶22

2 . Smt.S.Majida – learned counsel for the petitioner , vehemently argued that, even though the Corporation and its Authorities are obligated in law to ensure that the occupancy of buildings are not abused and that they are put to use only for purposes they are permitted, the action of the party respondents is in blatant disregard of the same; and that, the conduct of religious activity by them in their residential building has been completely disregarded for confutative reasons. She, therefore, reiteratingly prayed that the reliefs sought for in this Writ Petition be granted.

¶23

3 . Sri.Suman Chakravarthy – learned Standing Counsel for

¶24

WPC 1974/24

¶25

¶26

the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation, however, submitted that the assertions of the petitioner as afore are uncorroborated and unsubstantiated; and that, in spite of several visits having been done by his client, the party respondents were not found to have used their residential building for any religious purposes. He submitted that, therefore, his client obtains no cause to act against respondents 4 and 5; but added that they will abide by any directions to be issued by this Court.

¶27

4 . Smt.N.S.Shamila – learned counsel appearing for the

¶28

party respondents, also submitted that her clients are not acting in contravention of law in any manner whatsoever; and this can be verified by any Authority at any point of time. She submitted that the attempt of the petitioner is only to harass her clients for reasons not known to them; and thus prayed that this Writ Petition be dismissed.

¶29

5 . It is thus evident that, on one side, the petitioner asserts that respondents 4 and 5 are using their residential building for religious purposes; while, the stand of the party respondents and the Corporation is to the contrary. This is a pure disputation of fact,

¶30

¶31

WPC 1974/24

¶32

which this Court cannot decide, while acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India .

¶33

6 . However, as is well known, any organised religious

¶34

activity being carried on by any person or entity, can only be in compliance with the applicable Rules and Regulations that cover the field, particularly those relating to the preservation of communal harmony; and the competent Authority to ensure it is the District Collector.

¶35

7 . Indubitably, therefore, if the party respondents are acting

¶36

in violation of law, the petitioner obtains the right to move the District Collector appropriately under the afore provisions, which is covered by an order issued by the Government of Kerala. It is not even whisperingly stated by the petitioner that he has invoked any

¶37

such remedy, but, on the contrary, he seeks that the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation be directed to take action. As is without doubt, the jurisdiction of the Corporation is only to ensure that the user and occupancy of the buildings are not misused. Therefore, it is in the interest of the petitioner himself that he moves the District Collector with cogent evidence, if he is able to

¶38

WPC 1974/24

¶39

¶40

establish that the party respondents are acting in contravention of law by conducting religious activities in a building which is not certified for such purpose.

¶41

In such circumstances, I allow this Writ Petition to the limited extent of leaving liberty to the petitioner to move the District Collector appropriately under the applicable Rules and Regulations; and if this is done within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, said Authority will consider the same, after hearing him, as also the party respondents and the Secretary of the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation; thus culminating in an appropriate order/necessary action thereon , as expeditiously as

¶42

is possible, but not later than one month thereafter.

¶43

I make it clear that this Court has not entered into the merits of any of the rival contentions and that they are all left open, to be decided by the District Collector, if and when the petitioner invokes the liberty as reserved above.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶46

RR

¶47

JUDGE

WPC 1974/24

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1TRUE COPY OF THE TRUST DEED OF ETERNAL
TRUTH MINISTRIES CHARITABLE TRUST, DEED
NO. DT 20/06/2006
Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE DATED
05/07/2008
Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE DATED
24/03/2009
Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
NIL
Exhibit P5TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT PETITION
NO. 41244/2022 DATED 3/01/2023
Exhibit P6TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED FROM 2ND
RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT
OF KERALA IN CON.CASE(C) NO.1041/2023
Exhibit P7TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 03/06/2023
Exhibit P8TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 21/08/2023
Exhibit P9TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE
3RD RESPONDENT DATED 07/10/2023

N. Sundareshan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N. Sundareshan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Al- Hind Travel Portal LLP Vs the Investigation Officer

Salin Kumar V.R Vs Remla Beevi . I

A. Sarabeevi Vs Southern Railway

Moyyadan Narayani, Vs Kerala State Unorganised Workers Social Security Board

Sumesh Thankachan Vs Sub Divisional Magistrate Thalassery

Praveen Mohan Vs the State of Kerala