R.Radhakrishna Prasad vs Thekkumkara Gramapanchayat
2021 Latest Caselaw 3735 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

     TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 13TH MAGHA,1942

                        WP(C).No.2688 OF 2021(I)


PETITIONER/S:

                R.RADHAKRISHNA PRASAD
                AGED 76 YEARS
                S/O RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR K R,
                HARISREE HOUSE, KADAVANTHARA P O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-
                682020.

                BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHAMMED RAFEEQ

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         THEKKUMKARA GRAMAPANCHAYAT
                PUNNAMPARAMBA,
                THEKKUMKARA P O, THRISSUR, PIN CODE-680589.
                REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

      2         THE SECRETARY
                THEKKUMKARA, GRAMAPANCHAYATH, PUNNAMPARAMBA,
                THEKKUMKARA P O,
                THRISSUR , PIN-680589.


OTHER PRESENT:

                SC SANTHOSH P PODUVAL

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.2688 OF 2021(I)
                                         2


                                      JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P5 order

passed by the respondent Panchayath, rejecting an application for

development permit that was preferred by him. In the writ petition, the

grievance of the petitioner is essentially that Ext.P5 order does not contain

any reasons and is therefore one that is passed in violation of rules of natural

justice.

2.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also

the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also

the submissions made across the Bar, I find force in the contention of learned

counsel for the petitioner that Ext.P5 order is one that is bereft of any

reasoning and hence cannot be legally sustained. Accordingly, I quash Ext.P5

order and direct the 2nd respondent to pass fresh orders on the application for

development permit preferred by the petitioner, making it clear that in the

event that the application is rejected, the 2nd respondent shall clearly state the

reasons as to why the application for development permit could not be

considered favourably. The 2 nd respondent shall pass fresh orders as directed

within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The

petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition together with a copy of this

judgment, before the 2nd respondent, for further action.

Sd/-

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

SJ WP(C).No.2688 OF 2021(I)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 23.11.2020 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MANALITHARA VILLAGE.

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 16.03.2020 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MANALITHARA.

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT DATED 18/11/2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT PERMIT DATED 18/11/2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 03.12.2020 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.