IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 5877 of 2007(Y)
1. NUJUMUDEEN ALUMMOOTTIL AGED 40 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE KAYAMKULAM MUNICIPALILTY,
3. THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER,
4. THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER,
For Petitioner :SRI.TPM.IBRAHIM KHAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :21/02/2007
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.
..........................................................
W.P.(C) No.5877 OF 2007
...........................................................
DATED THIS THE 21ST FEBRUARY, 2007
J U D G M E N T
I do not propose to go into the merits of the matter. The
grievance of the petitioner who is the Patron of the Action Council for
Establishment of the Central Private Bus Stand within the limits of the
Kayamkulam Municipality is that in spite of Ext.P1 series which will
indicate that the proposal to establish the bus stand on the property in
R.S.224/5 belonging to SPMS was under serious consideration and in
spite of the fact that substantial amounts have been invested for
constructing a road to that property, there is a proposal now to go in
for establishing the private bus stand at some other place after
dropping the said proposal. In fact, the Tribunal for Local Self
Government Institution under Ext.P3 order directed the Municipal
Council to consider the proposal to have the bus stand established on
the property belonging to the SPMS also along with other proposals.
Ext.P3 order was passed by the Tribunal after setting aside a
resolution passed by the Municipality to the contrary. Ext.P5
representation has been submitted by the petitioner before the
Kayamkulam Municipal Council.
The Writ Petition accordingly will stand disposed of with the
WP(C)N0.5877 of 2007
-2-
following directions:
The Municipal Council will take up Ext.P5, consider the same in
the light of the various grounds raised in the Writ Petition and the
documents produced, particularly Ext.P3, hear the petitioner and also
the functionaries of SPMS and anybody else who, according to the
Municipality, will be concerned in the matter and take a correct
decision on Ext.P5. Decision as directed above will be taken within
one month of receiving copy of this judgment together with copies of
all the exhibits on which the petitioner wants the Municipality to rely
on.
(PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)
tgl
WP(C)N0.5877 of 2007
-3-
