SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(Online)(KER) 29931

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

TUESDAY ,THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 25TH POUSHA, 1940

WP(C).No. 11990 of 2015

PETITIONER:

C.K. MOIDU

AGED 68 YEARS

S/O. MOHAMMED, CHARUPADIKAL KARAAT,

ANDHIYURKUNNU AMSOM, MOZHANGALLUR DESOM,

KONDOTTY TALUK, PALLIKAL.P.O.,

MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673634.

BY ADVS.

SRI.K.M.FIROZ

SMT.M.SHAJNA

SRI.S.KANNAN

RESPONDENTS:

1

THE SECRETARY,

PALLIKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH

P.O. PALLIKKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673634.

2

PALLIKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH

P.O. PALLIKKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673634,

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

3

PALLIKKAL BAZAR JUMA MASJID MAHALLU COMMITTEE

P.O. PALLIKKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA,

REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.

BY ADVS.

SRI.HARISH R. MENON

SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR

ADV.SRI.K.SASIKUMAR

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

15.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 11990 of 2015

2

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to set aside

Ext.P1 notice and also to direct the first respondent to consider

Ext.P2 objection submitted by the petitioner against the direction to

remove the alleged illegal construction.

2.

The petitioner states that Ext.P1 notice was given by the

Secretary of the Panchayat to the petitioner directing the petitioner to

remove the illegal construction activities made by the petitioner. It is

the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has not made any illegal

construction and has acted only within the frame work of law.

3.

When this writ petition came up for admission, this Court

passed an interim order on 10.4.2015 suspending Ext.P1 as an

interim measure. This Court directed the petitioner that the petitioner

shall not indulge in any fresh construction.

4.

The petitioner states that the petitioner has filed Ext.P2

objection against Ext.P1 notice and any further proceedings pursuant

to Ext.P1 without considering Ext.P2 objection of the petitioner will

3

cause irreparable injury to the petitioner.

5.

I

have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also

the learned counsel for the Panchayat.

6.

In the facts and circumstances of the case this writ petition

is disposed of directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider Ext.P2

objection filed by the petitioner. Till the Panchayat takes a decision

after hearing the petitioner as indicated above, the interim order

passed by this Court will enure to the benefit of the petitioner.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH

JUDGE

4

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1

A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. A1-2600/15

DATED 6-4-2015 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER

BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ENGLISH

TRANSLATION.

EXHIBIT P2

A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED

7-4-2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER

BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH

ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

EXHIBIT P3

A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 7-4-2015

ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

dlk/15.01.19

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top