Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 12551 Ker
Judgement Date : 21 May, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 11545 OF 2017
PETITIONER:
V.C.JOSEPH
VETTIKKAT HOUSE, KANAYANGAVAYAL, PERUVANTHANAM PO,
IDUKKI DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.)
SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 603.
2 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 603.
BY ADV. SMT. THUSHARA JAMES (SR.GP)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 21.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)No.11545/2017 2
JUDGMENT
This writ petition was filed in the year 2017 seeking
the following reliefs:
i. issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for Ext.P6 and quash the same;
ii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to give necessary sanction in terms of Ext.P4 for the restoration of the damaged arch board in front of the Holy Cross at Kanayangavayal in Panchalimedu as evidenced by Ext.P1, as applied for Ext.P2 and P3 forthwith.
iii. Declare that the of the damaged arch board in front of the Holy Cross at Kanayangavayal in Panchalimedu is permitted to be restored so long as the nearby arch board of Sree Bhuvaneswary Devi Temple evidenced in Ext.P1 is treated as legally erected. iv. Issue such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances the case;
and v. Award costs to the petitioner.
2. The main case put forward by the petitioner
appears to be that the authorities have removed an arch
board in front of the Kanayangavayal Holy Cross,
Panchalimedu, while another arch board of the
Panchalimedu Sree Bhuvaneswary Devi Temple, which is
a temple under the Travancore Devaswom Board, has
been permitted to be retained. The principal contention
taken before this Court is that the authorities have
permitted a similar arch in front of a temple to remain
while not giving permission to restore the arch, which
was situated in front of the Kanayangavayal Holy Cross
in Panchalimedu. It is settled in law that there is no
concept of negative equality under the Constitution.
There is no pleading in the writ petition to suggest that
the petitioner or any other person has a right to erect the
arch at the place where it was situated. Moreover, the
counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent indicates that
the arch in question was situated on puramboke land.
Therefore, I find no reason to grant any of the
reliefs sought for in the writ petition. Writ petition fails
and it is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
GOPINATH P. JUDGE ats
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11545/2017
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE DEMOLISHED ARCH BOARD OF HOLY CROSS AT KANAYANGAVAYAL
EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER GO(P)NO.217/05/HOME DATED 25.7.2005
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.12.2016 IN WP(C)NO.36423/2016 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION VIDE NO.E1-34647/2016 DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT
EXHIBIT R1(a) PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.
CII-29823/16 DATED 15.03.2017.
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!