R. SURESH KUMAR, S/O. (LATE) RAVEENDRAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT (RC) DEPARTMENT – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
GOPINATH P., J.
The short question and the only one that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the Government could exercise its jurisdiction under Section 191 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘1994 Act’) against Ext.P11 decision of the committee of the Aryanad Grama Panchayat (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Panchayat’) in the light of the bar created by sub-section (3) of Section 191 of the 1994 Act. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this writ petition are noticed below:-
2. The 9th respondent is a Company engaged in executing an infrastructure project commonly known as the ‘Vizhinjam Port’ at Vizhinjam in Thiruvananthapuram District. It had, in connection with the construction activities of the Port, intended to set up a stone (granite) quarry in certain Government land falling within the limits of the Panchayat. When its application for license from the Panchayat under Section 233 of the 1994 Act was not processed, it approached this Court by filing a writ petition (W.P(C)No.35965/2022), which was allowed by Ext.P8 judgment dated 23-12-2022, finding that by virtue of the operation of the provisions of sub
An application under Section 191 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act is not maintainable if a remedy exists under Section 276, as the power to grant a licence includes the power to cancel it.
Section 191(4) of Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 is valid as Tribunal hearing under Section 191(2) ensures natural justice before Government suspension. Section 233(3) limits Panchayat to imposing co....
The court upheld the cancellation of the tender process while rejecting extensions to existing lessees, emphasizing the need for adherence to statutory provisions governing Panchayat settlements.
The court established that failure to issue a statutory notice under Section 249 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, necessitates the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC.
Notice under Section 249 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act is not mandatory when no relief is claimed against the Panchayat, nor is any action by it challenged.
Non-arbitrariness is an essential facet of Article 14 pervading the entire realm of State action governed by Article 14. It has come to be established, as a further corollary, that the audi alteram p....
Point of law : Environmental Clearance Certificates issued by DEIAA prior to judgment of National Green Tribunal order are valid as long as they are not subjected to successful challenge.
Suits against a Panchayat must comply with statutory notice requirements under Section 249 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, and applications for plaint rejection under Order VII Rule 11 must be adjudi....
The Panchayat Committee lacks jurisdiction to decide on building permit applications, which must be reviewed independently by the Secretary.
The District Commissioner lacks jurisdiction to remove a Panchayat member based solely on disqualification claims; such matters must be handled through an election petition post-election results, adh....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.