Kurian Philip vs Thiruvalla Municipality
2021 Latest Caselaw 19284 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
  TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021/23RD BHADRA, 1943
                     WP(C) NO. 15444 OF 2021


PETITIONER:

         KURIAN PHILIP, AGED 57 YEARS,
         S/O.K.N. PHILIPOSE, RESIDING AT
         AMBATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, MANGADI P.O.,
         KOMBADI, THIRUVALLA,
         PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

         BY ADV K.N.RADHAKRISHNAN(THIRUVALLA)


RESPONDENTS:

    1    THIRUVALLA MUNICIPALITY, THIRUVALLA,
         PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 689 102,
         REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

    2    SECRETARY, THIRUVALLA MUNICIPALITY,
         THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 689 645.

    3    THANKAPPEN, MEDAYIL HOUSE,
         MANGADI P.O., KOMBADI, THIRUVALLA,
         PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT 689 646.

         R1-R2 BY ADV S.SUBHASH CHAND

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 14.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C)No.15444/2021

                              2




                           JUDGMENT

Dated this the 14th day of September, 2021

The petitioner a resident within the territorial limits of

1st respondent - Thiruvalla Municipality is aggrieved by

Ext.P1 notice, which directed the petitioner to cut and

remove a tamarind tree.

2. The petitioner states that he is highly aggrieved

by the notice issued by the Municipality to cut and remove

the tamarind tree, the notice being passed without hearing

the petitioner. The tamarind tree is a yielding one and it

causes no nuisance or threat to the 3 rd respondent or any

other person. Ext.P1 is highly arbitrary and unsustainable,

contends the petitioner.

3. The learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1

and 2 submitted that Ext.P1 is only a preliminary notice.

Ext.P1 has been issued invoking the powers under WP(C)No.15444/2021

Sections 533, 534, 535 and 545 of the Kerala Municipalities

Act. Ext.P1 only directs the petitioner either to cut the

dangerous tree or to show cause against such cutting. The

petitioner has already submitted Ext.P2 reply to the show

cause notice. Therefore the respondents 1 and 2 will be

considering the reply of the petitioner and taking a final

decision. The petitioner cannot raise any grievance at this

stage of the proceedings.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2.

5. In view of the nature of the order to be passed in

this writ petition, notice to the 3 rd respondent is dispensed

with.

6. As Ext.P1 is only a preliminary notice and the

petitioner has submitted Ext.P2 reply, respondents 1 and 2

necessarily have to consider the issue in the light of Ext.P2

reply given by the petitioner. As Ext.P1 was issued on the WP(C)No.15444/2021

basis of complaint filed by the 3rd respondent necessarily

the respondents 1 and 2 have to hear the 3 rd respondent

also.

In such circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of

directing respondents 1 and 2 to consider Ext.P2 reply and

conclude the proceedings initiated as Ext.P1 after granting

an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the 3 rd

respondent. The petitioner would submit that he has

already cut and removed the branches of the trees causing

nuisance and danger. In such circumstances, respondents

will cause a further site inspection in the matter with notice

to the parties before passing final orders.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH JUDGE ncd/14.09.2021 WP(C)No.15444/2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15444/2021

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 THE COPY OF NOTICE NO. H2 8934/21 DATED 15.07.2201 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT. Exhibit P2 THE COPY OF REPLY DATED 19.07.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT.