Bejoy C. Augustine vs The Thodupuzha Municipality
2021 Latest Caselaw 14665 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                   PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
         WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 23RD ASHADHA, 1943
                          WP(C) NO. 27492 OF 2016
PETITIONER/S:

             BEJOY C. AUGUSTINE
             AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.C.O.AUGUSTINE, CHARALIL HOUSE,
             THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

             BY ADVS.
             SRI.SAIJO HASSAN
             SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN
             SRI.A.G.GIRISH KUMAR
             SRI.U.M.HASSAN
             SRI.PRATHAP PILLAI
             SRI.SEBIN THOMAS
             SRI.VISHNU BHUVANENDRAN


RESPONDENT/S:

     1       THE THODUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY
             THODUPUZHA-685584, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

     2       THE SECRETARY
             THODUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, THODUPUZHA - 685584, REPRESENTED
             BY ITS SECRETARY.

     3       THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
             PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, ROADS SUB DIVISION, THODUPUZHA-
             685584, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

     4       THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
             THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION, THODUPUZHA-685584, IDUKKI
             DISTRICT.

     5       THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THODUPUZHA POLICE STATION,
             THODUPUZHA, 685584, IDUKKI DISTRICT

             BY ADV SRI.UNNIKRISHNAN V.ALAPPATT, SC, THODUPUZHA
             MUNICIPALITY

             R1 AND 2- SRI.UNNIKRISHNAN V ALAPPATT,SC

             R3 TO 5 - SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE,SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER


     THIS    WRIT   PETITION   (CIVIL)   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON
14.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 27492 OF 2016                    2

                                    JUDGMENT

Petitioner is the owner of 15 cents of land in Thodupuzha Municipality.

According to the petitioner, a two storied building is constructed there and is

rented out to various business people. The case projected by the petitioner is

that, consequent to the bunk shops occupying the foot path and the road

margin, serious prejudice is caused to the petitioner as well as the commuting

pedestrians. It is also the case of the petitioner that, even though petitioner

has submitted a complaint before the Municipality and other statutory

authorities, no actions were initiated, which forced the petitioner to approach

this Court by filing this writ petition.

2. The Municipality has filed a counter affidavit, basically stating that,

there is no obstruction caused to the building of the petitioner, however,

certain petty shops were being functioned on the foot path which were

causing difficulties to the pedestrians, and having found so, the push carts

were removed from the foot path and now there are no obstructions created

in the foot path so as to prejudice the rights of the pedestrians.

3. However, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, even

though two push carts were removed, now-a-days, other carts and petty shops

are also being put up in front of the building, which is causing serious

prejudice to the petitioner as well as others.

4. I have heard Sri. Rafeeq V., representing Sri. Saijo Hassan, learned

Counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Surin George Ipe, learned Government Pleader

and Sri. Unnikrishnan V., learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality and

perused the pleadings and documents on record.

5. The discussion of facts made above would make it clear that the sole

issue raised by the petitioner was in respect of the push carts that were

stationed in front of the building of the petitioner, so as to cause prejudice to

the clients or customers visiting the building as well as to the pedestrians.

However, from the counter affidavit of the Municipality, it is clear that the

push carts were removed by the Municipality from the foot path and

thereafter, no manner of obstruction is caused to the petitioner as well as to

the pedestrians. I also make it clear that, if any inconvenience or obstructions

are caused to the petitioner as well as to the pedestrians, the Municipality

shall take adequate action, so as to abate such obstructions and nuisance, in

accordance with law.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, also recording the

statement of the Municipality that already the obstructions are removed.

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE

uu/14.07.2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27492/2016

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 05.05.2016 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE MUNICIPALITY

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 04.05.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT ON THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10.08.2016, SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE INCIDENT REPORTED IN THE "MATHRUBHUMI" NEWSPAPER DATED 12.08.2016

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE INCIDENT REPORTED IN THE DAILY NEWSPAPER "MALAYALA MANORAMA" DATED 12.08.2016

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE INCIDENT REPORTED IN THE DAILY NEWSPAPER "MALAYALA MANORAMA" DATED 13.08.2016.