Mr. K.R .Dinesan vs The Kunnamkulam Muncipality
2021 Latest Caselaw 18545 Ker

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021/17TH BHADRA, 1943
                     WP(C) NO. 4555 OF 2021


PETITIONER:

         K.R.DINESAN, KANIPPAYYUR HOUSE,
         PAYYUR ROAD, KANIPAYYUR P.O.,
         KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR -680 517.
         REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,
         RAJITHA T.R., AGED 38 YEARS,
         W/O.K.R.DINESAN, KANIPPAYYUR P.O.,
         KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR-680 517.

         BY ADVS.
         P.S.SREE PRASAD
         R.P.SREENIVASAN
         P.J.ANILKUMAR
RESPONDENTS:

    1    THE KUNNAMKULAM MUNCIPALITY,
         KUNNAMKULAM P.O., THRISSUR-680 503,
         REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

    2    THE SECRETARY,
         KUNNAMKULAM MUNICIPALITY,
         KUNNAMKULAM P.O., THRISSUR-680503.

    3    C.V.SABU, CHERUVATHUR HOUSE,
         PAYYUR ROAD, KANIPPAYYUR P.O.,
         KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR-680 517.

         BY ADVS.
         R1-R2 V.N.HARIDAS
         R1-R2 SAIFUDEEN T.S.
         R3 SMT.S.K.DEVI
         R3 SRI.SHANMUGHAM D.JAYAN

     THIS WRIT PETITION       (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP   FOR
ADMISSION ON 08.09.2021,      THE COURT ON THE SAME    DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) No.4555/2021
                                :2 :




                          JUDGMENT

~~~~~~~~~

Dated this the 8th day of September, 2021

The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved

by Exts.P1 and P3 notices issued by the 1 st respondent-

Municipality.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that by Exts.P1

and P3, the petitioner has been required to reinforce the

compound wall of the petitioner up to 1.7 metres. The

allegation in Exts.P1 and P3 is that the compound wall of the

petitioner is likely to cause danger to the general public. The

petitioner submits that there is no such danger from the

compound wall. Exts.P1 and P3 have been passed without

requiring the petitioner to show-cause and without granting

the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. In such

circumstances, Exts.P1 and P3 are unsustainable, contended

the learned counsel for the petitioner. WP(C) No.4555/2021

3. The learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1

and 2 would submits that in spite of issuance of Ext.P1 notice,

the petitioner did not submit any explanation or reply, nor did

he comply with the directions contained in Ext.P1. In such

circumstances that Ext.P3 notice was issued to the petitioner.

The notice is issued based on a complaint preferred by the 3 rd

respondent. The learned Standing Counsel also submitted

that there is no objection in granting opportunity of personal

hearing to the petitioner before taking a final decision in the

matter.

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of

declaring that Exts.P1 and P3 should be treated as

show-cause notices issued to the petitioner. A final decision

in this regard shall be taken by respondents 1 and 2, after

granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as

the 3rd respondent.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

aks/08.09.2021 WP(C) No.4555/2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4555/2021

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN COMPLAINT NO.

E2-14674/20 DATED 28/12/2020.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BEARING NO.E2-14717 DATED 05.12.2020.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN COMPLAINT NO.E2-14717 DATED 03.02.2021.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN COMPLAINT NO-

E2-14717/20 DATED 4.3.2021 ncd