Disposed

Dr.K.Suchithra v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Jan 2024WP(C)/814/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Kerala disposed of a writ petition challenging the construction of a public e-toilet. The court directed the municipality to consider the petitioner's representation with a hearing opportunity within three months and continue the status quo on construction.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders after hearing within three months; status quo on construction to continue.

Dr.K.Suchithra Vs State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 3^RD DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 13TH POUSHA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 814 OF 2013

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

DR.K.SUCHITHRA AGED 55 YEARS W/O.LATE DR.RAMESH,RESIDING AT 'SANTHI', NEAR HELIPAD,VARKALA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.I.J.AUGUSTINE SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN SMT.J.KASTHURI SRI.PRATHAP PILLAI SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.SEBIN THOMAS

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001. 2 VARKALA MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,OFFICE OF TEH VARKALA MUNICIPALITY,VARKALA 695 141. 3 DISTRICT TOURISM PROMOTION COMMITTEE OPPOSITE RAJ BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 003. 4 DIRECTOR OF TOURISM DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM,PARK VIEW, NEAR CORPORATION OFFICE,MUSEUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033. 5 NATURE CARE HOSPITAL A UNIT OF KERALA HEALTH SERVICE DEPARTMENT,NEAR HELIPAD, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 141,REPRESENTED BY ITS HEAD DR.JAYAKUMAR. 6 SANOOSH COUNCILOR, KURUKANI WARD,WARD NO.27, VARKALA MUNICIPALITY,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 141.

¶10

OTHER PRESENT:

¶11

SRI BS SYAMANTAK , GP

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

W.P.(C) NO.814 OF 2013

¶14

¶15

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶16

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C).No.814 of 2013

¶17

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3^rd day of January, 2024

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

This writ petition is filed with the following prayers:-

¶20

“i) to declare that the action of the 2^nd respondent to construct a public e toilet in front of the house of the petitioner so as to prejudicially injure the petitioner in a unilateral manner without hearing the petitioner or consulting the petitioner is highhanded, arbitrary and unfair and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution;

¶21

ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order of direction, directing the 2^nd respondent to stop the construction of public e-toilet in front of the petitioner's house as proposed now and to direct them to make such construction only in some alternate site without causing inconvenience and nuisance to citizens;

¶22

iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction, order directing the respondents to remove the construction and other construction already effected by the 2^nd respondent for constructing the public e toilet in front of the petitioner's house;

¶23

iv). issue such other reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case.” (SIC)

¶24

2. The petitioner is an eye specialist. It is the case of

¶25

the petitioner that the 2^nd respondent is proceeding to construct a public e-toilet in front of the residence of the

¶26

¶27

W.P.(C) NO.814 OF 2013

¶28

petitioner causing nuisance and injury to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the said location in front of the house of the petitioner is most unsuitable and inappropriate for pubic e-toilet and the said location will not serve the purpose of public e-toilet. It is also submitted that there are several alternate more suitable and appropriate sites for public e-toilet in the said area. Hence, this writ petition.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶30

the counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶31

When this writ petition came for consideration on

¶32

11.01.2013, this Court passed the following order:-

¶33

“Counsel for the Municipality seeks a weeks time to file counter affidavit. It is submitted by the counsel for the Municipality that for the time being the construction of the E-toilets has been kept in abeyance.

¶34

Therefore, there shall be an interim direction to the second respondent to maintain the status quo in respect of the construction of the E-toilets, for a period of two weeks. File Counter affidavit in the meantime.”

¶35

The interim order was extended regularly and the same was extended until further orders on 21.08.2013. The petitioner already filed Ext.P3 before the 2^nd respondent. If that is the case, there can be a direction to the 2^nd respondent to

¶36

W.P.(C) NO.814 OF 2013

¶37

¶38

consider the same and till then, the interim order already passed can be allowed to continue.

¶39

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

¶40

The 2^nd respondent is directed to consider

¶41

and pass appropriate orders in Ext.P3, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any

¶42

rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶43

Till final orders are passed, the order dated 11.01.2013, which is extended until further orders on 21.08.2013, will continue.

¶44

The petitioner will produce a certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 2^nd respondent for compliance.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶47

bng

¶48

W.P.(C) NO.814 OF 2013

¶49

¶50

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 814/2013

¶51

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶52

EXHIBIT-P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.05.2006 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P2 PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE BASEMENT CONSTRUCTION CARRIED OUT BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT AND THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT-P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2^ND RESPONDENT DATED 24.12.2012. EXHIBIT-P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS PAPER REPORT IN KERALA KAUMUDHI DATED 06.01.2013. EXHIBIT-P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER REPORT PUBLISHED IN MADHYAMAM DAILY DATED 07.01.2013.

Dr.K.Suchithra v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.K.Suchithra 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

Jaisy Jose, Vs State of Kerala

Bella Elsa Jose Vs State of Kerala

O.P.Srivasthava Vs State of Kerala

Eldhose Vs the Elappara Grama Panchayath

Manjusha T Vs Secretary to Government, General Education Department

Aboobacker Vs the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Chalissery Police Station