Mathew Thomas Vs. State of Kerala - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1141424
CourtKerala High Court
Decided OnMay-21-2014
JudgeHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR
AppellantMathew Thomas
RespondentState of Kerala
Excerpt:
in the high court of kerala at ernakulam present: the honourable mr.justice c.t.ravikumar wednesday, the21t day of may201431st vaisakha, 1936 wp(c).no. 23022 of 2013 (c) ---------------------------- petitioner(s):1. mathew thomas, s/o.thomas, aged63years ambakkadan house, master lane, sasthri road, thrissur-680 005.2. k.v. thomson, s/o.k.c.varghese, aged56years chungath house, master lane, sasthri road thrissur-680 005.3. aby anto, s/o.m.d.antony, aged41years mookkan house, master lane sasthri road, thrissur-680 005 by advs.sri.c.a.chacko smt.c.m.charisma smt.megha k.xavier respondent(s):1. state of kerala represented by secretary to government department of local self govrnment secretariat, thiruvananthapuram - 695 001.2. the district collector, thrissur680001 3. corporation of thrissur, represented by secretary corporation office, thrissur680001.4. the secretary, corporation of thrissur corporation office, thrissur680001.5. thankam v., d/o.vadakkoottu kochukuttiamma vadakkottu house, east fort, thrissur-5.6. kamala devi, vadakkoottu house, kizhakkambattukara desom, east fort, thrissur -5. r3-4 by adv. sri.k.p.vijayan, sc,thrissur corporation r3-r4 by adv. sri.v.m.syam kumar r3-r4 by adv. smt.kripa elizabeth mathews r3-r4 by adv. sri.v.n.haridas r5 by adv. sri.p.vijaya bhanu (sr.) r5 by adv. sri.v.a.johnson (varikkappallil) r5 by adv. sri.unni sebastian kappen r1,2 by government pleader sri.renny stephen this writ petition (civil) having been finally heard on2105-2014, the court on the same day delivered the following: wp(c).no. 23022 of 2013 (c) ---------------------------- appendix petitioner(s)' exhibits: ------------------------------ ext.p1 -true copy of the permit dated3112-12 issued by4h respondent to5h respondent. ext.p2 - photographs showing flood caused due to closing of natural flow of water. ext.p3 - true copy of the communication dated117-13 of tahsildar, thrissur. ext.p4 - true copy of the representation dated148-13 made before the4h respondent. ext.p5 -true copy of the mass representation dated208-13 made before the4h respondent with a copy to2d respondent. respondent(s)' exhibits:nil ---------------------------------- //true copy// p.a.to judge c.t. ravikumar, j.========================== w.p.(c). no.23022 of2013========================== dated this the 21st day of may, 2014 judgment the grievance of the petitioners is against the grant of building permit in favour of respondent no.5 as per ext.p1. according to the petitioners, permission was granted to the 5th respondent for constructing an automobile service room without conducting a proper enquiry. it is the further contention of the petitioners that such construction would interfere with the free flow of a natural water way passing through the properties of the 5th and 6th respondents. in such circumstances, feeling aggrieved by the building permit granted to the 5th respondent, the petitioners submitted ext.p4 representation before the 4th respondent. it is the non-feasance on ext.p4 that constrained the petitioners to file the captioned writ petition.2. when this matter is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the writ petition itself can be w.p.(c).23022/13 2 disposed of with a direction to the 4th respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on ext.p4. in the light of the said submission i do not think it necessary to delve into facts or contentions any further. in such circumstances, taking note of the aforesaid submission, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 4th respondent to consider ext.p4 and pass appropriate orders thereon expeditiously and in accordance with law, at any rate, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment with notice to respondents 5 and 6. it is made clear that this court has not made any observation as to the merits of the contentions. sd/- c.t. ravikumar (judge) spc/ w.p.(c).23022/13 3 c.t. ravikumar, j.judgment september,2010 w.p.(c).23022/13 4
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE21T DAY OF MAY201431ST VAISAKHA, 1936 WP(C).No. 23022 of 2013 (C) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

1. MATHEW THOMAS, S/O.THOMAS, AGED63YEARS AMBAKKADAN HOUSE, MASTER LANE, SASTHRI ROAD, THRISSUR-680 005.

2. K.V. THOMSON, S/O.K.C.VARGHESE, AGED56YEARS CHUNGATH HOUSE, MASTER LANE, SASTHRI ROAD THRISSUR-680 005.

3. ABY ANTO, S/O.M.D.ANTONY, AGED41YEARS MOOKKAN HOUSE, MASTER LANE SASTHRI ROAD, THRISSUR-680 005 BY ADVS.SRI.C.A.CHACKO SMT.C.M.CHARISMA SMT.MEGHA K.XAVIER RESPONDENT(S):

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVRNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR680001 3. CORPORATION OF THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY CORPORATION OFFICE, THRISSUR680001.

4. THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF THRISSUR CORPORATION OFFICE, THRISSUR680001.

5. THANKAM V., D/O.VADAKKOOTTU KOCHUKUTTIAMMA VADAKKOTTU HOUSE, EAST FORT, THRISSUR-5.

6. KAMALA DEVI, VADAKKOOTTU HOUSE, KIZHAKKAMBATTUKARA DESOM, EAST FORT, THRISSUR -5. R3-4 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.VIJAYAN, SC,THRISSUR CORPORATION R3-R4 BY ADV. SRI.V.M.SYAM KUMAR R3-R4 BY ADV. SMT.KRIPA ELIZABETH MATHEWS R3-R4 BY ADV. SRI.V.N.HARIDAS R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.) R5 BY ADV. SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL) R5 BY ADV. SRI.UNNI SEBASTIAN KAPPEN R1,2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.RENNY STEPHEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON2105-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 23022 of 2013 (C) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: ------------------------------ EXT.P1 -TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT DATED3112-12 ISSUED BY4H RESPONDENT TO5H RESPONDENT. EXT.P2 - PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING FLOOD CAUSED DUE TO CLOSING OF NATURAL FLOW OF WATER. EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED117-13 OF TAHSILDAR, THRISSUR. EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED148-13 MADE BEFORE THE4H RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 -TRUE COPY OF THE MASS REPRESENTATION DATED208-13 MADE BEFORE THE4H RESPONDENT WITH A COPY TO2D RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:NIL ---------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

========================== W.P.(C). No.23022 OF2013========================== Dated this the 21st day of May, 2014 JUDGMENT

The grievance of the petitioners is against the grant of building permit in favour of respondent No.5 as per Ext.P1. According to the petitioners, permission was granted to the 5th respondent for constructing an automobile service room without conducting a proper enquiry. It is the further contention of the petitioners that such construction would interfere with the free flow of a natural water way passing through the properties of the 5th and 6th respondents. In such circumstances, feeling aggrieved by the building permit granted to the 5th respondent, the petitioners submitted Ext.P4 representation before the 4th respondent. It is the non-feasance on Ext.P4 that constrained the petitioners to file the captioned writ petition.

2. When this matter is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the writ petition itself can be W.P.(C).23022/13 2 disposed of with a direction to the 4th respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4. In the light of the said submission I do not think it necessary to delve into facts or contentions any further. In such circumstances, taking note of the aforesaid submission, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 4th respondent to consider Ext.P4 and pass appropriate orders thereon expeditiously and in accordance with law, at any rate, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment with notice to respondents 5 and 6. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observation as to the merits of the contentions. Sd/- C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE) spc/ W.P.(C).23022/13 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

JUDGMENT

September,2010 W.P.(C).23022/13 4