Dismissed

Mercy Andrew v. Chavara Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC1 Apr 2025WP(C)/13230/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a panchayat demand notice relating to a telecom tower on her property. The court held that since the demand notice was appealable under the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was not warranted and dismissed the petition with liberty to pursue statutory remedies.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with liberty reserved to petitioner to pursue statutory remedies against the demand notice.

Mercy Andrew Vs Chavara Grama Panchayath — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2025)

¶1

2025:KER:27913

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 11TH CHAITHRA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 13230 OF 2025

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

MERCY ANDREW
AGED 52 YEARS
W/O. ANDREWS,
RESIDING AT MANISH VILLA,
PATTATHANAM P.O.KOLLAM, PIN - 691021

¶7

BY ADVS.
S.SREEKUMAR (KOLLAM)
K.VIJAYAN
NAMITHA RAJESH
NITHYA V.D.
ABHILASH T.
RESHMI SASIDHARAN

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 CHAVARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOTTANKULANGARA, BHARANIKAVU ROAD, PUTHUKKAD, CHAVARA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691585

¶10

2M/S. RELIANCE INFRATEL LTD
7TH FLOOR, DD TRADE TOWER,
KALOOR, KADAVANTHRA ROAD, KOCHIN,PIN - 682017
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED OFFICER,

¶11

BY ADV. M.R SASITH PANICKER,
STANDING COUNSEL

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 01.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶13

W.P.(C). No.13230 of 2025

¶14

-:2:-

¶15

2025:KER:27913

¶16

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J. ----------------------------------------W.P.(C). No.13230 of 2025

¶17

Dated this the 1^st day of April, 2025

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Petitioner challenges Exhibit-P2 demand notice issued by the 1^st respondent Panchayat towards the Telecom Tower setup by the 2^nd respondent in petitioner’s property. Since the aforesaid demand notice is appealable under the provisions of the Panchayt Raj Act, 1994, exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not warranted.

¶20

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the 1^st respondent, I am of the view that the petitioner ought to be relegated to pursue her statutory remedies.

¶21

Accordingly, reserving the liberty of the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedies, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE

¶24

Jka/01.04.25.

¶25

W.P.(C). No.13230 of 2025

¶26

2025:KER:27913

¶27

-:3:-

¶28

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13230/2025

¶29

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶30

Exhibit P1THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONFORMATION LETTER
SIGNED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND THE
PETITIONER DATED NIL

¶31

Exhibit P2THE TRUE COPY OF THE RR DEMAND NOTICE
DATED 12.03.2025 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT

¶32

Exhibit P3THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED
20.3.2025 FILED BY THE PETITIONER
AGAINST EXHIBIT- P2 DEMAND NOTICE

Mercy Andrew v. Chavara Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mercy Andrew v. Chavara Grama Panchayath

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

Ashlyn Antony Vs Thrissur Municipal Corporation

Sr. Kochuthresia T.P Vs Taliparamba Municipality

Sulthan Bathery Service Co-Operative Bank Vs Income Tax Officer

N.R.Shaji Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

M/S. Exos It Management Private Limited Vs the Assistant Enforcement Officer

Srineesh.K.S Vs State of Kerala