Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 4837
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 17TH MAGHA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 18122 OF 2015 PETITIONER:
BABU ABRAHAM PUKKUNNEL, AGED 68 YEARS S/O.ABRAHAM, PUKKUNNEL HOUSE, PUTHUPADY P.O.KOTHAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY, (VIA) MUVATTUPUZHA BY ADVS.
SRI.N.M.MADHU SMT.C.S.RAJANI RESPONDENTS:
1 THE KOTHAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY REPRSENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, KOTHAMANGALAM 686 691
2 BEENA GIBI W/O. GIBI JACOB, MEMBER OF WARD NO
24,KOTHAMANGALAM MUNICIPLAITY, RESIDING AT MUNDAKKAL HOUSE, KARUKADOM, KOTHAMANGALAM (VIA) 686 691 BY ADVS.
V.M.KURIAN SHRI.PEEYUS A KOTTAM, SC, KOTHAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY SHRI.JOICE GEORGE, SC, KOTHAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
P. V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
W.P(C).No.18122 of 2015 -------------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of February, 2024
JUDGMENT
The above Writ Petition is filed with the following prayers:
i. To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P6.
ii. To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to take appropriate steps to cause measurement of the puramboke in around the area by competent authorities at the earliest.
iii. Pass such other orders as deem fit and proper including that of cost [SIC]
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P6, a notice demanding the petitioner to remove the earth from the front side of the petitioner’s building. The petitioner opposed the same mainly for the reason that the petitioner was not heard before issuing Ext.P6. It is also submitted that, if the earth is removed as demanded in Ext.P6, the entire rain water and waste water from the nearby drainage abutting the National Highway would flow to the petitioner’s property thereby making it impossible to enter the building from that side. According to the petitioner, respondents are settling the scores as earlier when there was a move to shift a nearby auto-stand to the front side of the petitioner, the petitioner approached this Court and this Court delivered Ext.P4 judgment and that is why the present proceedings.
3. When this Writ Petition came up for consideration before this court on 17.06.2015, this Court passed the following order:
‘Heard. Admit.
The learned Standing Counsel takes notice for R1. Issue ntoice to R2 by speed post.
The operation of Ext.P6 shall be kept in abeyance on condition that the petitioner shall not reduce any portions of the property belonging to the respondent Municipality to his possession.
This order shall be in force for a period of two weeks.
Post after two weeks in the petition list.’
4. The interim order was extended until further orders from 01.07.2015. In the light of the above interim order, no further order is necessary. The interim order dated 17.06.2015, which is extended until further orders on 01.07.2015, can be retained. But I make it clear that, if any further proceedings is to be initiated against the petitioner, the Municipality should issue notice to the petitioner and hear him before passing any order.
Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:
a) The interim order dated 17.06.2015 is made absolute.
b) If any proceeding is initiated against the petitioner by the Municipality, the Municipality shall issue notice to the petitioner and hear him before proceeding with the matter.
