Goapalakrishnan vs The Secretary on 18 November, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 34640 of 2010(D)


1. GOAPALAKRISHNAN, AGED 48 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 44 YEARS,

                        Vs



1. THE SECRETARY, MULAVUKAD GRAMA
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,

3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.O.XAVIER

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN

 Dated :18/11/2010

 O R D E R
                        P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
               -----------------------------------------
                    W.P(C).No.34640 of 2010
               -----------------------------------------
          Dated this the 18th day of November, 2010

                             JUDGMENT

The petitioners, who are brothers, have filed this writ

petition challenging Ext.P3 preliminary order issued by the Sub

Divisional Magistrate, Fort Kochi in M.C.No.392/10/D and Ext.P5

letter sent by the Secretary of Mulavukad Grama Panchayat

calling upon them to demolish a portion of the compound wall,

which according to the Panchayat constitutes danger and nuisance

to pedestrians. Way back in the year 1998 the Sub Divisional

Magistrate, Fort Kochi issued Ext.P1 order directing the

petitioners’ father to demolish the very same compound wall. He

challenged the said order by filing Crl.R.P.No.50 of 1998 in the

Court of Session, Ernakulam and Ext.P2 interim order was passed

in the said revision petition. The petitioners have not stated

whether the revision petition was allowed and Ext.P1 order was

set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

petitioners are not aware of the fate of the revision petition. It

appears, later some other persons who are aggrieved by the very

W.P(C).No.34640 of 2010
-:2:-

same compound wall, again moved the Sub Divisional Magistrate

who issued Ext.P3 provisional order under section 133 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure. By that order the petitioners were

directed to demolish and remove the compound wall within seven

days or to appear before the Sub Divisional Magistrate on

4.11.2010 and to show cause why the order should not be

enforced. The petitioners appeared before the Sub Divisional

Magistrate and filed Ext.P4 objections. It was thereafter that

Ext.P5 notice was issued by the Secretary of Mulavukad Grama

Panchayat calling upon the petitioners to demolish the compound

wall. In my opinion in view of the fact that Ext.P1 order has

attained finality, the first respondent is perfectly right in issuing

Ext.P5. The first respondent is not bound to wait for the outcome

of M.C.No.392/2010 before proceeding to direct the petitioners to

demolish the compound wall. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Fort

Kochi, has in Ext.P1 order noticed that the compound wall

constitutes danger to the pedestrians using the pathway. Ext.P3

order also notices that the compound wall leans towards the

pathway thereby causing danger to the pedestrians. In such

W.P(C).No.34640 of 2010
-:3:-

circumstances as the said orders were issued by the authorities in

public interest taking into account the safety of the pedestrians, I

am not inclined to interfere with Exts.P1, P2 and P3 orders.

The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.

P.N.RAVINDRAN,
Judge.

ahg.

P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.

—————————

W.P(C).No.34640 of 2010

—————————-

JUDGMENT

18th November, 2010