Rajesh K.G. vs Thiruvampady Grama Panchayath on 9 November, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 26775 of 2009(N)


1. RAJESH K.G., S/O.GOPALAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THIRUVAMPADY GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THIRUVAMPADY GRAMA PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE,

3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

4. THE HEALTH INSPECTOR,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

 Dated :09/11/2009

 O R D E R
              THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN,J.
                ---------------------------
                  W.P.(C).NO.26775 OF 2009
                ---------------------------
            DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2009

                             JUDGMENT

Petitioner runs a piggery. He has no licence. He

moved this Court saying that his application for licence is

pending and an interim order was granted taking into

consideration that the shop would be closed down over night.

2. The lst respondent Grama Panchayat is on record

with Ext.R1(a) which shows that even before the institution of

the writ petition, the petitioner’s request for licence was rejected.

But that was communicated to the petitioner only a day after this

matter was admitted. But what is more undergoing is that the

petitioner is surreptitiously suppresses the most relevant facts in

this writ petition. The lst respondent Panchayat had filed a

criminal complaint against the petitioner. This is evidenced by

Ext.R1(c). Petitioner suffered a sentence by pleading guilty. This

was much before the writ petition was not brought up. Had this

-2-
W.P.(C).No.26775/2009

Court been noted the fact that the petitioner was not only an

accused but also suffered a sentence by pleading guilty. In

relation to the activity as regards which he is invoking the writ

jurisdiction, consideration at the stage of admission would have

been totally different. With this situation, the petitioner, along

with the reply, affidavit has placed a copy of yet another

representation and prays to this Court to issue a direction to the

Panchayat to consider the regularisation of construction made for

the purpose of piggery. Issuance of writ in exercise of

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is a

discretionary matter. Illegality, refusal or failure of duties would

not generate the issuance of a writ, unless injustice needs to be

clipped. One of the guiding principles in the jurisdiction is bona

fides. Suppression of facts is never tolerated. The request for

direction to consider the petitioner’s application for regularisation

is rejected.

In the result, this writ petition is dismissed with costs

-3-
W.P.(C).No.26775/2009

fixed at Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) to the lst

respondent.

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN,
JUDGE.

kcv.