Disposed

Dr.Harish.M.T v. Thrissur Municipal Corporation

Kerala HC12 Apr 2024WP(C)/2531/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Residents challenged a Corporation council resolution reducing the width of a planned road from 25 meters to 21 meters. The court, noting it was unclear whether the 2017 resolution still held the field and that a technical committee under the Regional Town Planner existed, disposed of the writ petition with liberty for petitioners to file representations before the technical committee.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioners to move the technical committee of the Regional Town Planner with representations; first respondent to consider in accordance with law.

Dr.Harish.M.T Vs Thrissur Municipal Corporation — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 2531 OF 2018

¶5

PETITIONERS:

¶6

1 DR. HARISH. M.T

¶7

BLESSING, IRINGADANPALLI ROAD, MEDICAL COLLEGE P. O, NELLICODE VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE-673 008.

¶8

2 BALAN K.A KOTTARAPPATT HOUSE, GURUVAYOOR ROAD, PUNKUNNAM -680 002, THRISSUR VILLAGE.

¶9

3 PROF. ANSARI M.T

¶10

I BLOCK 1481, APARNA SAROVAR, KANCHA HACHIBOWLI, NALLAGANDLE, CENTRAL UNIVERSITY P.O, HYDRABAD-500 046, TELANGANA.

¶11

4 T.M JOHNY

¶12

THAIKATTIL HOUSE, KOTTEKAD P.O, KUTTUR – 680 013.

¶13

5 P.J VARGHESE

¶14

PANENGADEN HOUSE, PURANATTUKARA, THRISSUR.

¶15

6 A.G RAVINDRAN,

¶16

AINIKATTIL HOUSE, SANKER IYER ROAD, PUNKUNNAM, THRISSUR.

¶17

7 RAGESH K.R KRIKSHNA NIVAS, P.O. POOTHOLE, THRISSUR – 680 004.

¶18

8 RATHEESH ANTHIKKATHU, WEST FORT, THRISSUR – 4.

¶19

9 FATHIMA K.M 9B CIDBI CHIRAG, GURUVAYOOR ROAD, THRISSUR – 680 004. BY ADVS.

¶20

SRI. K. P. VIJAYAN
SRI. V. N. HARIDAS
SMT. SABEENA P. ISMAIL

¶21

RESPONDENTS:

¶22

1 THRISSUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,

¶23

THRISSUR – 680 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶24

2 THE SECRETARY, THRISSUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, THRISSUR – 680 001.

¶25

3 REGIONAL TOWN PLANNER, TOWN PLANNING OFFICE, THRISSUR – 680 001.

¶26

4 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT OFFICE, THRISSUR – 680 001.

¶27

BY ADV SRI. SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL, SC, THRISSUR CORPORATION

¶28

WP(C)No.2531 of 2018

¶29

¶30

OTHER PRESENT:

¶31

SRI. BIMAL K. NATH, SR. G. P.

¶32

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶33

WP(C)No.2531 of 2018

¶34

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

Dated this the 12^th day of April, 2024

¶37

The Petitioners are residents of Trissur Corporation.

¶38

According to the Petitioners they have constructed their buildings leaving requisite set backs in complying with the sanctioned DTP Scheme. Their grievences is that as per Ext. P1, the Corporation has decided to reduce the width of the road from 25 meters to 21 meters. Aggrieved by the same, Petitioners have filed various representations before the authorities. Therefore, they have filed the present Writ Petition impugning Exhibit P1 the resolution of the Council for the Corporation.

¶39

I have heard Shri. V N Haridas, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as Shri. Santhosh P Poduval, learned standing Counsel appearing for the 1^st Respondent and the learned Senior Government Pleader, Mr. Bimal K Nath for Respondents 2 to 4.

¶40

Exhibit P1 is passed on 11.07.2017. It is not clear from the records as to whether the said decision still holds the

¶41

WP(C)No.2531 of 2018

¶42

¶43

field. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners, however, submit that there is a technical committee constituted under the AG’s of Regional Town Planner, Thrissur, the 3^rd Respondent to look into these aspects. Hence, I dispose of the Writ Petition with liberty to the Petitioners to move before the technical committe of the 3^rd Respondent. The Petitioners are at liberty to file their representation and, once the representation is filed, the 1^st Respondent shall look into the matter in accordance with law.

¶44

With the above said observations, this Writ Petition is

disposed of.

Sd/-

EASWARAN S JUDGE

AJ

¶49

WP(C)No.2531 of 2018

¶50

¶51

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2531/2018

¶52

`PETITION`	`ERS’ EXHIBITS`
`EXHIBIT`	`P1`	`A` `10.`	`TRUE COPY` `7.2017.`	`OF THE COUNCIL RESOLUTION DATED`
`EXHIBIT`	`P2`	`A` `18.` `1ST`	`TRUE COPY` `9.2017 SUB` `RESPONDENT`	`OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED` `MITTED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE` `.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P3`	`A` `DAT`	`TRUE COPY` `ED 18.9.201`	`OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT` `7.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P4`	`A` `18.` `3RD`	`TRUE COPY` `9.2017 SUB` `RESPONDENT`	`OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED` `MITTED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE` `.`
`RESPONDE`	`NTS’ EXHIBITS`	`NIL`

¶53

True Copy
 PA to Judge

Dr.Harish.M.T v. Thrissur Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Harish.M.T v. Thrissur Municipal Corporation

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

K.T. Mathew Vs the Bar Council of India

Jaimon Jose Vs Kottayam Municipality

Nazeer K.M Vs the Managing Director

The Mathrubhumi Printing and Publishing Co. Ltd., Vs Asistant Commissioner(Special Circle I)

Kerala Maritime Organization, Vs Union of India

Manoj Joseph Vs the State of Kerala