Kerala High Court
WP(C)/42163/2017 of ASHRAF P.M Vs KANNUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION on 29 December 2017
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/8TH POUSHA, 1939 WP(C).No. 42163 of 2017 (U) ---------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------- ASHRAF P.M., AGED 52 YEARS, S/O ABDURAHIMAN, RESIDING AT ANAYIDUKKU, THANA,
PETITIONER:----------
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/8TH POUSHA, 1939
WP(C).No. 42163 of 2017 (U) ---------------------------- ASHRAF P.M., AGED 52 YEARS,S/O ABDURAHIMAN,RESIDING AT ANAYIDUKKU,THANA, KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.R.AVINASH (KUNNATH) SRI.PRAJIT RATNAKARAN
RESPONDENTS:-----------
1KANNUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,KANNUR-670001.REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,KANNUR-670001.
2THE TOWN PLANNER,DEPARTMNET OF TOWN PLANNING,KANNUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,KANNUR-670001.DEPARTMNET OF TOWN PLANNING,KANNUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,KANNUR-670001.
3THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (LSGD),KANNUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,KANNUR-670001.KANNUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,KANNUR-670001.
4P.M. IMBICHIKOYAMMA,S/O A.P.M. MAMMU KEY,S/O A.P.M. MAMMU KEY, AGED 74 YEARS, RESIDING AT SHUHAIBAS,AYAYIDUKKU, THANA P.O.,KANNUR-670012.AYAYIDUKKU, THANA P.O.,KANNUR-670012.
5K.P. KADHEEJA,W/O P.M.IMBICHIKOYAMMA, AGED 60 YEARS,RESIDING AT SHUHAIBAS,AYAYIDUKKU, THANA P.O.,KANNUR - 670012.W/O P.M.IMBICHIKOYAMMA, AGED 60 YEARS,RESIDING AT SHUHAIBAS,AYAYIDUKKU, THANA P.O.,KANNUR - 670012.
6ABDUL WAHID, S/O MOOSA,AGED 64 YEARS, 'WAHID HOUSE',AGED 64 YEARS, 'WAHID HOUSE', ANAYIDUKKI, THANA P.O.,KANNUR-670012.KANNUR-670012.
7SAMEERA ASHRAF,W/O ASHRAF, 'NAJMA NIVAS',THANA, KANNUR-12.W/O ASHRAF, 'NAJMA NIVAS',THANA, KANNUR-12.
R1-R3 BY SMT.S.AMBILY, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS----------------------- NIL
TRUE COPY
P.S. TO JUDGE
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
------------------------------------
W.P. (C) No.42163 of 2017------------------------------------ Dated this the 29[th] day of December, 2017
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner impugns Ext.P6 notice issued by the KannurMunicipal Corporation to his wife, who is the 7[th] respondentherein, directing her to show cause why action should not betaken to demolish certain construction made in the residentialproperty. The petitioner says that he is the co-owner of theproperty and the building and therefore, that Ext.P6, to theextent it intimates only his wife, and not him is illegal. Hesupports his assertion by also submitting that he and his wife arenot now in amicable terms; that there are litigations pendingbetween them and he apprehends that it is at the instance of hiswife that these proceedings have been initiated so as to enableher to obtain possession of the property from him. The petitionerhas, therefore, prayed that the official respondents be directed toconsider his objections also before further action is completed onExt.P6.
W.P.(C) No.42163/2017
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner andthe learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Kannur MunicipalCorporation.
3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Kannur Municipal Corporation, Smt.S.Ambily, submits that thepetitioner's case is untenable because, at the time when buildingpermit was issued, he was not the owner of the property and thatthe building thereon was constructed thereafter. According toher, the Corporation is only abiding by the directions of this Courtin Ext.P4 judgment.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it istrue that the Corporation appears to be acting in terms of Ext.P4judgment; but, he says that the said judgment was obtainedfrom this Court by respondents 4 to 6 herein making only his wifeas a party and that his wife had also colluded with them inobtaining the judgment.
5. Whatever be the contentions raised by the parties beforeme, one thing is certain that the petitioner asserts that he is theco-owner of the property and the building in question. He alsosays that he is in occupation of the same. If that be so, it is only W.P.(C) No.42163/2017
in the fairness of things and in equity that he also be allowed tosubmit his version before the Secretary in response to Ext.P6notice. Since Ext.P6 notice is only issued to his wife and not tohim, obviously, his apprehension that he may not be heard in thematter appears to be well-founded.
In such circumstances and for the reasons afore, I orderthis writ petition directing the 1[st] respondent-Secretary of KannurMunicipal Corporation to conclude and complete the proceedingson Ext.P6 notice, only after affording an opportunity of beingheard to the petitioner also along with the 7[th] respondent andother objecting persons.
This writ petition is thus ordered.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRANJUDGE
smp