Disposed

Rinoj v. the Pudukad Grama Panchayat

Kerala HC23 Jul 2024WP(C)/26027/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petition challenging a Panchayat order to stop German coaching. The bench directed the Panchayat to reconsider the students' plea and the petitioner's license application within two months, pending which coercive steps are stayed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent-Panchayat to consider the students' representation and pending license application and decide in two months; coercive steps deferred.

Rinoj Vs the Pudukad Grama Panchayat — Education and Admissions | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2024 / 1ST SRAVANA, 1946

¶5

WP(C) NO. 26027 OF 2024

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

RINOJ
AGED 28 YEARS
SON OF SHAJU MANIVALAPPIL,
HOUSE, KSEB ROAD, ALAGAPPANAGAR P.O.,
MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR, PIN - 680302
BY ADVS.
SAIJO HASSAN
SANGEETH MOHAN
V.P.REJITHA
NITIN S.
DHEERAJ BABY
MEERA J. MENON
RUCHIKA RAJESH

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE PUDUKAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PUTHUKAD P.O., THRISSUR, PIN - 680301

¶10

2 THE SECRETARY PUDUKAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PUTHUKAD P.O., THRISSUR, PIN - 680301

¶11

3 JAYAPRAKASH AGED 60 YEARS SON OF BHASKARAN, NADAVARAMBIL HOUSE, CHENGALLUR P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR, PIN - 680312

¶12

SRI.K.S.BHARATHAN, STANDING COUNSEL

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 23.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

WP(C) NO.26027 OF 2024

¶16

P.M. MANOJ, J

¶17

W.P.(C) No.26027 of 2024

¶18

Dated this the 23^rd day of July, 2024

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The writ petition was preferred challenging Ext.P6 order of the 2^nd respondent-Secretary. The grievance of the writ petitioner is with respect to the issuance of direction to stop functioning of the institution M/s. Mountain International Academy.

¶21

It is stated that the petitioner herein is imparting German language coaching under the institution named as Mountain International Academy.

¶22

In fact, this institution was under partnership with the 3^rd respondent. There arose a dispute between the parties to the agreement. As a rivalry measure, the 3^rd respondent approached the

¶23

WP(C) NO.26027 OF 2024

¶24

¶25

respondent-Panchayat for evacuating the building. In this respect, already the petitioner herein approached to the Munsiff Court, Irinjalakuda for an injunction and that was declined by Ext.P2. In that circumstances, an application was preferred by the petitioner for a licence for the establishment and that was also rejected by Ext.P3.

¶26

In this regard another writ petition was also preferred and that was disposed of with a direction to approach the Panchayat as per Ext.P5. In that matter, the Panchayat had already heard the parties in dispute and passed Ext.P6. Now, the students of the petitioner’s Institution had preferred Ext.P7 application before the Panchayat, stating that the stop memo issued by the Panchayat will adversely affect their carrier and prospectus. Under such circumstances, the petitioner seeks disposal of Ext.P7 application by the Panchayat.

¶27

WP(C) NO.26027 OF 2024

¶28

I have heard Sri.Saijo Hassan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.K.S. Bharattan, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2. Considering the limited prayer, I prefer to dispense notice to the 3^rd respondent.

¶29

The issue involved is mainly a dispute between the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent, who were partners to the firm called M/s. Mountain International Academy. The dispute was entertained by the Munsiff Court, Irinjalakuda as well as this Court in Ext.P5 judgment. Now, in the present writ petition the prayer is with respect to the issuance of Ext.P6, in fact, for which alternative remedy is available.

¶30

However, now the petitioner has limited his prayer to dispose Ext.P7, which was preferred by the students of the institution, stating that issuance of stop memo and consequential stoppage of the institution will put them in trouble.

¶31

WP(C) NO.26027 OF 2024

¶32

¶33

In the aforesaid circumstances, I direct the

¶34

respondent-Panchayat to consider Ext.P7

¶35

representation preferred by the students of the institution. At the time of considering the same, the application for licence, if any, filed by the petitioner shall also be considered and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law within a period of two months. Till that time, coercive steps as per Ext.P6 shall stand deffered.

¶36

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶37

Sd/P.M. MANOJ JUDGE

¶38

SSS

¶39

WP(C) NO.26027 OF 2024

¶40

¶41

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26027/2024

¶42

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶43

EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED
01.11.2022
EXHIBIT P2THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY
THE MUNSIFF COURT, IRINJALAKUDA DATED
21.12.2023 IN O.S. 791/2023 FILED BY
THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P3THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING
NUMBER 400720/RPTL19/GPO/2022/1271/(2)
DATED 01.07.2022 ISSUED BY THE
RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2, REJECTING THE
LICENSE
EXHIBIT P4THE GRANT OF LICENSE VIDE LETTER NUMBER
400720/RPTL20/GPO/2023/4700DATED
01.08.2023
EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
27.05.2024 IN WP(C) 1799/2024 PASSED BY
THIS HON'BLE COURT
EXHIBIT P6TRUECOPYOFORDERNO.
400720/GGDC08/GPO/2024/2656/(5)DATED
05.07.2024 ISSUED BY THE 1ST AND 2ND
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P7A JOINT REQUEST DATED 18.07.2024 SIGNED
BY 18 STUDENTS STUDYING GERMAN AT THE
ESTABLISHMENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR
TEMPORARILY SUSPENDING THE PROCEEDINGS
AGAINST THE ESTABLISHMENT UNTIL THEIR
COURSE IS OVER

Rinoj v. the Pudukad Grama Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rinoj v. the Pudukad Grama 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

C.Harikumar Vs State of Kerala

Triveni Agencies Vs Assistant Commissioner

M/S. Rent Works India (P) Ltd. Vs the Assistant Commissioner

C.P.Venugopalan Nair Vs State of Kerala, Represented by Secretary

Ismail E.K., Vs the State of Kerala

Gopi Vs the Secretary, Koovapady Grama Panchayath