Kerala High Court
Augustine vs Kuzhuppilly Grama Panchayath on 11 June, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 21ST JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 14211 OF 2014
PETITIONER:
AUGUSTINE
AGED 72 YEARS
S/O.KAKKAPPAN,
CHAKKALACKAL HOUSE,
CHERUVYPU, AYYAMPILLY POST,
VYPEEN, KOCHI 682 510
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.A.CHACKO
SMT.C.M.CHARISMA
RESPONDENTS:
1 KUZHUPPILLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KUZHUPPILLY PO,
VYPIN ,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,682 508.
2 THE SECRETARY
KUZHUPPILLY GRAMA PANCHAYATHKUZHUPPILLY PO,
VYPIN ,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,682 508.
3 KERALA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
SASTHRA BHAVAN, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
4 SASEENDRAN
S/O.PARAMESWARAN,PAZHAMPILLY HOUSE,
AYYAMPILLY POST, KUZHUPPILLY VILLAGE,
VYPIN , ERNAKULAM 682 510
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.ROHIT, SC, KUZHUPPILLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT
SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH
SRI.PRAKASH C.VADAKKAN. J., SC, KCZMA
Prakash M P
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING FINALLY BEEN HEARD ON
11.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 14211 OF 2014
2
JUDGMENT
1. Petitioner's grievance is with respect to illegal construction
construction made by the 4th respondent and conduct of a
Pealing Shed therein.
2. On the complaint of the petitioner, the Panchayat had
issued a notice to the 4th respondent remove the said
construction.The 4th respondent challenged the same before
this Court and by Ext.P1 judgment this Court directed to treat
the said Notice as a Show Cause Notice and directed the 4 th
respondent to file objection and further directing the
Panchayat to pass final orders in the matter.
3. When the Panchayath did not take any action, the
petitioner approached the Ombudsman for local self
Government Institution and by Ext.P2 order the Ombudsman
directed the Panchayat to take a decision in the matter. In
compliance with Ext.P2 order, the 2nd respondent passed
WP(C) NO. 14211 OF 2014
Ext.P3 notice dated 07/12/2021 directing the 4th respondent
to remove the construction at his expenses.
4. The 4th respondent challenged in Ext.P3 before the
Tribunal for self Government Institution by filing appeal and
the same was dismissed by order dated 17/05/2012
specifically stating that the construction of the petitioner is for
non-residential purpose and the same is not permitted as per
the CRZ notification of the year 2011. Thereafter Ext.P5
Notice dated 15/06/2012 was issued by the Panchayat
directing the 4th respondent to remove the construction
failing which the same will be removed by the 1st respondent
at the cost of the 4th respondent.
5. The 4th respondent challenged Ext.P5 in this Court by
filing writ petition and the same was disposed Ext.P6
judgment dated 09/01/2014 permitting the 4th respondent to
submit appropriate application before the CRZ authorities for
WP(C) NO. 14211 OF 2014
that getting necessary permission.
6. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the
4th respondent submitted application before the 3rd
respondent the same was found defective and ultimately it
was returned as such there is no pending application before
the 3rd respondent. In view of these facts the Panchayat is
bound to implement Exts.P3 and P5 and the learned counsel
for the petitioner prayed that a direction may be issued to the
Panchayat to implement Exts.P3 and P5 within a time limit.
7. The Counter affidavit dated 11/09/2015 is filed by the
respondents 1 and 2. The Counter affidavit dated 29/09/2015
is filed by the 4th respondent. A statement dated 11/09/2015
is filed by the 3rd respondent.
8. The contention of the 4th respondent is that in
accordance with Ext.P6 judgment, he has submitted that
Ext.R4(c) application before the 3rd respondent for
WP(C) NO. 14211 OF 2014
regularisation.
9. It is seen from Para 11 of the Counter affidavit of the
respondents 1 and 2 that Ext.R1(c) application is returned to
the 4th respondent directing to obtain necessary clearance
certificate from the Kerala State Pollution Control Board to
operate the peeling shed for processing his application.
10. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner
is that thereafter no such application was resubmitted after
obtaining necessary clearance certificate from Pollution
Control Board.
11. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted
that he has got instructions with respect to the present status
of affairs and confirms that the 4 th respondent has not
obtained any clearance from the 3rd respondent and also
there is no pending application of the petitioner before the 3 rd
respondent at the instance of the 4th respondent.
WP(C) NO. 14211 OF 2014
12. In view of these facts I find there is no impediment for
the 1st and 2nd respondent to implement Ext.P3 and Ext.P5 .
13. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the respondents
1 and 2 to implement Exts.P3 and P5 within three months of
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
14. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
JUDGE
sms
WP(C) NO. 14211 OF 2014
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14211/2014
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE CLURT
IN WPC NO. 31300/2010 DATED 29/10/2010
EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF ORDER DATED 25/8/2011 OF
OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT IMN OP NO. 1306/2010
EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF NOTICE DATED 7/12/2011 ISSUED
BY 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1`7/5/2012 OF
TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT
INSTITUTIONS
EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF NOTICE DATED 15/6/2012 ISSUED
BY 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
DATED 9/1/2014 IN WPC NO.15828/2012
EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF LAWYER NOTICE DATED 12/3/2014
ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT
