Kerala High Court
Dinu Thomas vs Kuravilangadu Gramapanchayat on 10 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 19TH SRAVANA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 29700 OF 2017
PETITIONER:
DINU THOMAS,
AGED 43 YEARS,
S/O. THOMAS, THEKKUMVELIL HOUSE,NAZRETH HILL P.O.,
KURAVILANGADU, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT PIN-686 633
BY ADV SRI.JOSE KURIAKOSE (VILANGATTIL)
RESPONDENTS:
1 KURAVILANGADU GRAMAPANCHAYAT,
KURAVILANGADU, KOTTAYAM PIN-686 633
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
2 PRADEESH.T.S.,
S/O. SIVARAMAN, AGED 34 YEARS, THERUVATHIL HOUSE,
MADUKKA PO., KOSADI, MUNDAKAYAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT
PIN-686513
BY ADVS.
SRI.SIJI ANTONY
SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 29700 OF 2017 -2-
JUDGMENT
Above writ petition is filed with the following
prayers:
"a) issue a writ of mandamus or other writ order
or direction directing the 1st respondent to take
steps to implement Ext.Pl notice and stop hotel
business in building No. XIV/198A of
Kuravilangadu Gramapanchayat by the 2nd
respondent;
b) issue such other writ or pass such other
orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case;
c) award the cost of the petitioner."
2. The main grievance of the petitioner is that
after issuing Ext.P1 notice to the second respondent
no consequential steps are taken by the Panchayath.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
the counsel appearing for the respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the first respondent
takes me through paragraph Nos.6 and 7 of the
counter statement. The same is extracted
hereinbelow:
"6. When the 1st respondent decided to take
further steps as contemplated under Chapter 32
of Panchayath Raj Act, it was Informed by the
2nd respondent that, a civil suit was filed by the
2nd respondent before the Court of Munsiff,
Pala. Later it came to notice that, O.S.
2009/2015 filed by the 2nd respondent before the
Court of Munsiff, Pala was dismissed for fault
for the non-representation.
7. Now, the 1st respondent is preparing for
further steps, including Issuance of fresh stop
memo in this financial year against the
unlicenced working of the 2nd respondent's hotel
in No.XIV/198A of Kuravilangad Grama
Panchayath in compliance with the provision of
Panchayath Raj Act and Rules. The 1st
respondent further affirms that, if any orders
are passed by this Hon'ble in this writ petition,
the same also shall be implemented in
obedience."
5. In the light of the same writ petition can be
disposed with appropriate directions. First
respondent can be directed to take further steps based
on Ext.P1 within a time frame.
Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with
the following directions:
(i) The first respondent is directed to take follow up
action based on Ext.P1 as expeditiously as
possible at any rate within two months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
(ii) Before passing final orders an opportunity of
hearing should be given to the petitioner and the
second respondent.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
vv
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29700/2017
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.A4-
5585/16 DATED 22.8.2016 OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2: THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
DATED 26.9.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER
