Kerala High Court
Sony Thomas vs The State Of Kerala on 7 October, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 15TH ASWINA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 15785 OF 2012
PETITIONER/S:
1 SONY THOMAS
MANAGING DIRECTOR, GREEN OASIS REGENCY HOTEL,
MUTTOM.P.O., THODUPUZHA-685 587.
2 GREEN OASIS REGENCY HOTEL
MUTTOM.P.O., THODUPUZHA-685 587, REP.BY ITS MANAGING
DIRECTOR, SRI.SONY THOMAS.
BY ADV SRI.ANIL THOMAS(T)
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REP.BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 039.
2 THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 039.
3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
IDUKKI-685 602.
4 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, IDUKKI-685 602.
5 THE TAHSILDAR,
TALUK OFFICE, THODUPUZHA-685 584.
6 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
VILLAGE OFFICE, MUTTOM-685 587.
7 THE MUTTOM GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
MUTTOM-685 587, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
8 RAGESH M.R.,
MADATHIL, MUTTOM-685 587.
BY ADVS.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI.S.DILEEP KALLAR
SRI.B.RAJESH
R1 TO R6 BY SRI. JOBY JOSEPH, SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
07.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No. 15785/2012 :2:
SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
---------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C). No. 15785 of 2012
---------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of October, 2022.
JUDGMENT
The petitioners have filed this writ petition with the following
prayers:
1) Issue a writ of certiorari or other writ, order or direction calling for the
records pertaining to Exhibits P4 and P10 orders passed by the
respondents 4 and 3 respectively, and quash the same considering the
same are illegal and arbitrary.
2) Declare that the actions of the 4 th and 3rd respondents in giving scant
regard to the reports of their subordinates in a country governed by the
rule of law is fainted with non-application of mind and therefore,
unsustainable in the eye of law, unless supported by specific reasons;
3) To declare that the right of the citizens in holding the property under
Article 300 A and effecting construction on it in accordance with the
valid permit and other necessary sanctions, can only be taken away
under compelling circumstances, in furtherance of the objectives of the
statute on the subject and not in a mechanical manner;
4) Stay the operation of Exhibit P10 to the extent it directs the renovation
of lands back to the original position.
2. When the matter was posted before me on 29.09.2022,
there was no representation for the petitioners and the matter was
posted to today. Today also, there is no representation for the
petitioners.
In that view of the matter, I do not think, the petitioners are any
more interested in prosecuting the case further. Therefore, this writ
petition is dismissed for default.
sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.
Rv
