IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 18270 of 2006(Y)
1. UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 70 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. TOWN PLANNING OFFICER,
3. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DEVELOPMENT
4. CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.V.GEORGE
For Respondent :SRI.K.A.JALEEL, SC., TRIDA
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :/ /
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.
-------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 18270 OF 2006
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 1st day of February, 2007
O R D E R
The Advocate Commissioner has filed his report on 8.01.07. To
this report, objections have been filed by the Writ Petitioner. It is stated
therein that the visit of the Advocate Commissioner was without giving
any prior information or notice. Notice dt.2.01.07 which was sent by the
Advocate Commissioner to the counsel for the petitioner was received
by the counsel only on 10.01.07 and Ext.P9 envelope with postal seal
affixed thereon is relied on in this regard. It is stated that as per the
Advocate Commissioner’s notice inspection was scheduled on 6.01.07
and therefore it is contended that the Commissioner’s visit was without
notice to the petitioner or his counsel. The petitioner submits that he is
a bed ridden patient undergoing dialysis for Kidney failure twice a week.
The petitioner informed his counsel about the Advocate Commissioner`s
visit but since the inspection was without giving prior notice either to the
petitioner or the counsel, the petitioner requested the Commissioner to
adjourn the inspection and conduct the same on another day after
issuing notice to the petitioner or his counsel. Thereupon the Advocate
Commissioner informed the petitioner that inspection will be conducted
on another date after giving prior notice to the petitioner and his
WPC No.18270/2006
2
counsel. After giving such an assurance, the petitioner’s signature was
obtained by the Advocate Commissioner and stated that the same was
being taken only as a document to show that the Commissioner came
to the spot for inspection on 6.01.07. The present report which is to the
effect that the inspection was conducted in the presence of the
petitioner, his wife and son is result of false representation given by the
Advocate Commissioner over the petitioner. The signature of the
petitioner was obtained by the Advocate Commissioner from his bed
while he was convalescing after having undergone dialysis at India
Hospital Trust. Ext.P10 is copy of the receipt dt.6.01.07 issued by the
India Hospital Trust and Ext.P11 appointment card showing the details
of the petitioner’s visit to the India Hospital Trust for undergoing dialysis
are relied on in the statement of objections. The correctness of the
materials reported by the Advocate Commissioner is also seriously
questioned in the objections. It is contended that the Commissioner did
not take notice of the real facts in its right perspective and material
aspects have been suppressed by the Advocate Commissioner at the
instance of the officials of the TRIDA. The details of the alternate site
alleged to have been alloted to the petitioner have not been correctly
explained in the report. The said site is situated in a very low-lying area
but it is decided that the area is not at all fit for construction of a house.
Nobody will be able to stay there. The Advocate Commissioner has not
noticed this and many other relevant facts.
WPC No.18270/2006
3
2. Even though serious objections have been raised by the Writ
Petitioner regarding correctness of the matters reported by the Advocate
Commissioner, I do not propose to examine the same now. But
technically, the Writ Petitioner is correct when he contends that neither
his Advocate nor he has been given prior notice regarding the visit of the
Advocate Commissioner.
3. Sri.T.V. George submits that serious prejudices have been
caused to the petitioner and his counsel for want of a prior notice
regarding inspection by the Advocate Commissioner.
Under these circumstances, without setting aside the report now
filed by the Advocate Commissioner, I direct the Advocate
Commissioner, Sri.Sunil Kumar to conduct a fresh inspection. Fresh
inspection will be conducted by the Advocate Commissioner giving at
least three week’s notice by registered post acknowledgment due to the
Advocate for the petitioner and copy under certificate of posting to the
Writ Petitioner in his address shown in the Writ Petition. It is needless
to mention that notice regarding the next visit will be given to the
respondents also. The Commissioner will be eligible for an additional
remuneration of Rs.5,000/- which will be paid by the 3rd respondent-
TRIDA to him against a memo.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE
btt
WPC No.18270/2006
4