Usman K.T vs Ongallur Grama Panchayath
2021 Latest Caselaw 6843 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                  PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 7TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                       WP(C).No.3641 OF 2021(E)


PETITIONER:

              USMAN K.T.,
              AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED,
              KONDOORKARATHODI HOUSE, ONGALLUR,
              KALLADIPATTA P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT

              BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR

RESPONDENTS:

     1        ONGALLUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
              REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
              KALLADIPATTA P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT,PIN-679
              313

     2        THE SECRETARY,
              ONGALLUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
              KALLADIPATTA P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT,PIN-679
              313


    THIS      WRIT     PETITION    (CIVIL)     HAVING    COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION     ON     26.02.2021,    THE     COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C)No.3641 of 2021
                                      2




                         W.P.(C)No.3641 of 2021
            -------------------------------------------------------


                                JUDGMENT

Petitioner owns an auditorium. In the premises of the

auditorium, he is erecting a temporary structure. On coming to

know of the said construction, the second respondent issued

Ext.P5 stop memo to the petitioner alleging that the conduct of

the petitioner would contravene Section 235H of the Kerala

Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (the Act). The case of the petitioner is

that the construction proposed by him does not contravene

Section 235H of the Act and such constructions are permissible

under Section 235Y of the Act. The petitioner has therefore

submitted Ext.P6 representation requesting the second

respondent to recall Ext.P5 stop memo. It is alleged by the

petitioner that Ext.P6 representation is not being considered by

the second respondent. The petitioner, therefore, seeks

appropriate directions in this regard in the writ petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. In the nature of the order I propose to pass in

this matter, no notice need be issued to the respondents. W.P.(C)No.3641 of 2021

Having regard to the fact that the grievance voiced by

the petitioner in the writ petition concerns only the inaction on

the part of the second respondent in considering Ext.P6

representation, the writ petition is disposed of directing the

second respondent to consider Ext.P6 with notice to the

petitioner as also the complainant referred to in Ext.P5 stop

memo. This shall be done within two weeks.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE YKB W.P.(C)No.3641 of 2021

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE OF THE BUILDING OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED, 14.1.2020

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CASH RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED, 22.6.2020 FOR THE PAYMENT OF PROPERTY TAX

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT TO OPERATE ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DT, 27.1.2020

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENCE ISSUED BY ONGALLUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH TO THE PETITIONER, DT 29.9.2020

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT 8.2.2021 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS NO.B2-245/21(2)

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 10.2.2021