IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 6328 of 2008(C)
1. VIJAYAN, S/O. PONNUPILLAI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. S. ASOK KUMAR, S/O. SADANANDAN,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.J.S.AJITHKUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :19/06/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
===============
W.P.(C) NO. 6328 OF 2008 C
====================
Dated this the 19th day of June, 2008
J U D G M E N T
The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P6. Ext.P6 is an
order passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions in
Appeal No.512/07 filed by the respondents herein. By this order, the
Tribunal set the Varkala Municipality ex-parte. Taking note of the fact that
despite repeated orders, petitioner herein has not produced the files,
Tribunal held that if the non production is willful, he is unfit to continue in
the post and ordered that the Director of Urban Affairs be addressed for
production of the file and to initiate action against the petitioner. Counsel
for the petitioner submits that the original file was produced before the
Tribunal itself in connection with OP 132/07. It is stated that though the
files were misplaced, it has now been recovered from the Tribunal itself
and that the same has been incorporated in the proceedings in Appeal
No.512/07. Since the factual position is as above, the purpose of the
petitioner to have the file on record is seen accomplished.
2. As regards the observation of the Tribunal are concerned,
counsel for the respondent points out that when he attempted to have
WPC 6328/08
: 2 :
proceedings initiated against certain unauthorised construction in his
neighbourhood, the petitioner was remaining inactive. According to him,
thereupon he had filed a writ petition before this court and even the High
Court order was not complied with. It is stated that finally when he was
led to a situation where he had no other option and even at that stage,
instead of taking action against the unauthorized construction complained
of, the petitioner initiated proceedings against the respondents herein.
That notice was challenged before this court and it is stated that the notice
was initially stayed by this court, but later the writ petition was disposed of
and he was relegated to pursue the statutory remedy of appeal. It is
contended that it was on that basis appeal No.512/07 was filed. Counsel
submits that non production of the file was deliberate and the petitioner
was always unwilling to comply with the Tribunal’s order. Counsel also
refers to Exts. P7 and P8 and justifiably contends that the facts stated
there are also incorrect and that these documents were created for
producing before this court.
3. From the facts as noticed and as pointed by the counsel for
the respondents, this court also cannot approve the conduct of the
petitioner and his conduct needs to be deprecated. But however, having
WPC 6328/08
: 3 :
regard to the fact that the files are now in place, I am inclined to take the
view that from the action against the petitioner need not be continued.
Therefore, it is ordered that the direction in Ext.P6 order of the Tribunal
that action should be initiated against the petitioner will stand deleted.
With the above direction, writ petition is disposed of.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp