Dr. Jayasankaran Vs. Thalikulam Grama Panchayat - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1142056
CourtKerala High Court
Decided OnMay-23-2014
JudgeHONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR
AppellantDr. Jayasankaran
RespondentThalikulam Grama Panchayat
Excerpt:
in the high court of kerala at ernakulam present: the honourable mr.justice c.t.ravikumar friday, the23d day of may20142nd jyaishta, 1936 wp(c).no. 13039 of 2014 (d) ---------------------------- petitioner(s): ----------------- dr. jayasankaran, aged72years s/o. p.s.kunhikittu, resisding at puliparambil house p.o. thalikulam, thrissur district-680569. by advs.smt.sumathy dandapani (sr.) sri.millu dandapani respondents: ----------------- 1. thalikulam grama panchayat p.o.thalikulam, thrissur district-680569 represented by its secretary.2. the secretary thalikulam grama panchayat, p.o. thalikulam thrissur district-680569. this writ petition (civil) having come up for admission on2305-2014, the court on the same day delivered the following: wp(c).no. 13039 of 2014 (d) ---------------------------- appendix petitioner's exhibits --------------------------- exhibit p1- photocopy of building permit no. a2/410/2009-10 that has been granted by the repondent panchayat to the petitioner on313-2010. exhibit p2- photocopy of building number508a in ward no. vii of thalikulam grama panchayat issued to the petitioner by the respondent panchayat. exhibit p3- photocopy of the site plan, referred to in the writi petition (civil). exhibit p4- photocopy of the order no. b1-1169 dated29-2013 issued by the2d respondent to the petitioner. exhibit p5- photocopy of explanation dated259-2013 submitted by the petitioner before the2d respondent. exhibit p6- photocopy of acknowledgment no. a5/5419 dated259-2013 received by the petitioner from the respondent panchayat in respect of exhibit p5 explanation. respondents' exhibits: nil ---------------------------- // true copy // tks p.s. to judge c.t.ravikumar, j.------------------------------ w.p.(c)no.13039 of 2014 ------------------------------- dated 23rd may, 2014 judgment it is the non-feasance on the part of the respondents despite the receipt of ext.p5 that constrained the petitioner to file the captioned writ petition. the petitioner and his siblings are the joint owners in possession of 10.814 cents of property comprised in survey nos.363/1, 350/1 and 375/10 of thalikulam village in chavakkad taluk. the brothers of the petitioner submitted an application for grant of permit to construct a commercial building thereon. that application was considered and ext.p1 building permit was granted. on the strength of the building permit they commenced the construction and completed its ground floor. later, building number was assigned. thereafter, they wanted to put up one more floor on the said building and in that regard they applied to the second respondent. later, the petitioner was informed that unless further clarifications are offered it would not be possible to grant permit. as per ext.p4, the petitioner was asked to submit his explanation, if any, within 15 days from the date of its receipt. the petitioner submitted ext.p5 explanation on his behalf and also on behalf of his brothers. the learned senior counsel wp(c).no.13039/2014 2 submitted that in fact, ext.p5 was filed by the petitioner for and on behalf of the applicants and that the petitioner is also having locus standi to submit such explanation and in fact, he was called upon to submit explanation, if any. the short prayer of the petitioner is for a direction to the respondents to consider ext.p5 and pass appropriate orders. in the said context, it is relevant to note that in fact, ext.p4 was addressed to the petitioner.2. having heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and especially, taking note of the order i propose to pass in this writ petition i do not think it necessary to issue notice to the respondents in this proceedings.3. in fact, it is evident from ext.p4 that after noting certain defects of the application submitted for effecting further construction on the building in question the petitioner was asked to submit certain explanations, if any. the petitioner was also granted time for submitting explanation, if any, in regard to the said aspects. it is after the receipt of ext.p4 that ext.p5 explanation/clarification was given by the petitioner. having invited objections/clarifications from the petitioner wp(c).no.13039/2014 3 and obtained the same, there is no reason to delay its consideration. in the said circumstances, without making any observation as to the merits of the contentions raised y the petitioner in this writ petition and also in ext.p5, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider ext.p5 and pass appropriate orders on the application submitted by the petitioner in respect of which ext.p4 was issued to the petitioner expeditiously and in accordance with law, at any rate, within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. sd/- c.t.ravikumar judge tks
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE23D DAY OF MAY20142ND JYAISHTA, 1936 WP(C).No. 13039 of 2014 (D) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------- DR. JAYASANKARAN, AGED72YEARS S/O. P.S.KUNHIKITTU, RESISDING AT PULIPARAMBIL HOUSE P.O. THALIKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680569. BY ADVS.SMT.SUMATHY DANDAPANI (SR.) SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THALIKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT P.O.THALIKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680569 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

2. THE SECRETARY THALIKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, P.O. THALIKULAM THRISSUR DISTRICT-680569. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON2305-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 13039 of 2014 (D) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS --------------------------- EXHIBIT P1- PHOTOCOPY OF BUILDING PERMIT NO. A2/410/2009-10 THAT HAS BEEN GRANTED BY THE REPONDENT PANCHAYAT TO THE PETITIONER ON313-2010. EXHIBIT P2- PHOTOCOPY OF BUILDING NUMBER508A IN WARD NO. VII OF THALIKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT. EXHIBIT P3- PHOTOCOPY OF THE SITE PLAN, REFERRED TO IN THE WRITI PETITION (CIVIL). EXHIBIT P4- PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER

NO. B1-1169 DATED29-2013 ISSUED BY THE2D RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P5- PHOTOCOPY OF EXPLANATION DATED259-2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE2D RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6- PHOTOCOPY OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT NO. A5/5419 DATED259-2013 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT IN RESPECT OF EXHIBIT P5 EXPLANATION. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL ---------------------------- // TRUE COPY // TKS P.S. TO JUDGE C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.

------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.13039 of 2014 ------------------------------- Dated 23rd May, 2014 JUDGMENT

It is the non-feasance on the part of the respondents despite the receipt of Ext.P5 that constrained the petitioner to file the captioned writ petition. The petitioner and his siblings are the joint owners in possession of 10.814 cents of property comprised in Survey Nos.363/1, 350/1 and 375/10 of Thalikulam Village in Chavakkad Taluk. The brothers of the petitioner submitted an application for grant of permit to construct a commercial building thereon. That application was considered and Ext.P1 building permit was granted. On the strength of the building permit they commenced the construction and completed its ground floor. Later, building number was assigned. Thereafter, they wanted to put up one more floor on the said building and in that regard they applied to the second respondent. Later, the petitioner was informed that unless further clarifications are offered it would not be possible to grant permit. As per Ext.P4, the petitioner was asked to submit his explanation, if any, within 15 days from the date of its receipt. The petitioner submitted Ext.P5 explanation on his behalf and also on behalf of his brothers. The learned Senior counsel WP(C).No.13039/2014 2 submitted that in fact, Ext.P5 was filed by the petitioner for and on behalf of the applicants and that the petitioner is also having locus standi to submit such explanation and in fact, he was called upon to submit explanation, if any. The short prayer of the petitioner is for a direction to the respondents to consider Ext.P5 and pass appropriate orders. In the said context, it is relevant to note that in fact, Ext.P4 was addressed to the petitioner.

2. Having heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and especially, taking note of the order I propose to pass in this writ petition I do not think it necessary to issue notice to the respondents in this proceedings.

3. In fact, it is evident from Ext.P4 that after noting certain defects of the application submitted for effecting further construction on the building in question the petitioner was asked to submit certain explanations, if any. The petitioner was also granted time for submitting explanation, if any, in regard to the said aspects. It is after the receipt of Ext.P4 that Ext.P5 explanation/clarification was given by the petitioner. Having invited objections/clarifications from the petitioner WP(C).No.13039/2014 3 and obtained the same, there is no reason to delay its consideration. In the said circumstances, without making any observation as to the merits of the contentions raised y the petitioner in this writ petition and also in Ext.P5, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider Ext.P5 and pass appropriate orders on the application submitted by the petitioner in respect of which Ext.P4 was issued to the petitioner expeditiously and in accordance with law, at any rate, within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS