IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 15201 of 2008(S)
1. N.K.BIJU, S/O. KUNJUMON,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT RILE ASSOCIATION OF IDUKKI
3. PRINCE MATHEW,
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
5. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
6. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
7. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
8. THE GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MUTTOM,.
For Petitioner :SRI.SAJAN MANNALI
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :12/08/2008
O R D E R
H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J.
-------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.15201 of 2008
------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 12th day of August, 2008
JUDGMENT
H.L.Dattu, C.J.
Public spirited citizens are before us in this writ petition filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. The petitioner organization seeks the following reliefs in
this writ petition. They are as under:
“I) to issue a writ of certiorari, or any other
appropriate writ, direction, or order, calling for the
records leading to Ext.P1 agreement, and to quash the
same.
II) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the 4th
respondent to cancel Ext.P1 agreement, as mentioned in
the Ext.P9 notice of the 4th respondent.
III) to issue a writ of mandamus, or any other
appropriate writ, direction or order directing the 1st
respondent to demolish, the two storied building, which
has been constructed illegally in the leased out area as
per Ext.P1 agreement, the same being constructed
violating the terms of Ext.P1 agreement.
W.P. (C) No.15201 of 2008
2
IV) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, direction or order directing the 7th & 8th
respondents to consider and dispose of Exts.P7 & P8
representations filed by the petitioner and pending before
them.
V) to direct the respondents to pay the costs of this
proceedings.
VI) to grant any other reliefs, as prayed for by the
petitioner, during the course of arguments, and which this
hon’ble court deems fit to grant.”
3. The brief assertions made by the petitioner is as under:
It is stated that the second respondent District Rifle Association, Idukki
had applied for land from the Government for its functioning. It is stated
that an extent of 7850 sq. mts. of land was allotted by the Government to
the second respondent on a lease basis. The agreement was entered into
by the first respondent with the Secretary of the second respondent
Association. It is further stated that as per the agreement the second
respondent will have to maintain all safety precautions required as per the
Rules for protecting the Government property and also to construct a butt
wall levelling the sight, fencing, sheds, etc. It is further alleged that the
W.P. (C) No.15201 of 2008
3
second and third respondents have trespassed into double the area allotted
to them by the Government and they have put up a two storeyed building
and further they are making all efforts to put up further construction.
4. In the writ petition, it is further stated that coming to
know these omissions and commissions said to have been committed by
the second and third respondents, the 4th respondent Executive Engineer
has issued Ext.P9 notice, inter alia, directing the second and third
respondents to show cause why the lease agreement said to have been
executed by the State Government should not be cancelled. Further it is
stated that coming to know the various misdeeds said to have been
committed by the second respondent association, the petitioner
organization has already filed Ext.P8 representation before the concerned
Grama Panchayat. It is the grievance of the petitioner before this Court
that though Ext.P9 notice was issued by the Executive Engineer, and after
it was served on the third respondent, nothing has been done by the
Executive Engineer.
5. The other complaint is that though the petitioner
organization has filed a representation before the concerned Grama
Panchayat, the Grama Panchayat has not taken any action on the
representation filed by the petitioner organization. Therefore, the
W.P. (C) No.15201 of 2008
4
petitioner organization is before us for the reliefs indicated by us earlier.
6. The respondents have filed their counter affidavits before
us denying the assertions and allegations made by the petitioner
organization.
7. In our opinion, at this stage, it may not be necessary for us
to go into the allegations/assertions made by the petitioner organization
and its denial by the respondents. For the present, in our opinion, we need
only to direct the Executive Engineer who has issued Ext.P9 notice, and to
which the second respondent association has already filed its reply, to
consider the same and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible
after hearing the petitioner organization as well as the second respondent
association. While doing so, the Executive Engineer will not be
influenced by any one of the advices that may be issued to him by the
superior authorities.
8. In our opinion, the other prayer sought for by the
petitioner organization, namely a direction to the Grama Panchayat to
consider Ext.P8 representation also requires to be granted by us.
9. Therefore, we direct the Grama Panchayat, namely the 8th
respondent herein, to consider the representation filed by the petitioner
organization in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of
W.P. (C) No.15201 of 2008
5
hearing to all the contesting respondents within a period of three months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this Court’s order.
7. While disposing of this writ petition we make it clear that
we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Liberty is
reserved to the petitioner organization as well as the second respondent
association to put forth all their claims before the concerned authorities.
8. Writ petition is disposed of with the above observations
and directions.
9. In view of the order passed in the writ petition the relief
sought for in I.A.No.8339 of 2008 need not be considered at this stage.
Accordingly, the said application stands rejected.
Ordered accordingly.
(H.L.DATTU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(A.K.BASHEER)
JUDGE
vns