Saifunneesa vs The Secretary on 16 January, 2019

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Saifunneesa vs The Secretary on 16 January, 2019

Bench: Shaji P.Chaly

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

    WEDNESDAY,THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 26TH POUSHA, 1940

                        WP(C).No. 33532 of 2016



PETITIONER/S:


                SAIFUNNEESA, W/O KUNHI MUHAMMED,
                AGED 34 YEARS, CHERAKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE,PARAL, THOOTHA
                P.O, ALIPARAMBA VILLAGE,PERINTHALMANNA TALUK,
                MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

                BY ADV. SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS



RESPONDENT/S:
       1      THE SECRETARY, ALIPARAMBA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
              PARAL, THOOTHA P.O.,
              MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN - 679 357.

      2         THE ALIPARAMBA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
                PARAL, THOOTHA P.O.,
                MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN - 679 357,
                REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

                R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.I.SAGEER


THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
16.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No. 33532 of 2016                       2

                                        JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-

"(i) a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction calling for the records leading to Exhibit P1 demand notice and quash the same

(ii) To issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Honourable court may deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. The basic challenge made by the petitioner is on account of Ext.P1 R.R. Demand notice issued by the 1 st respondent, ie, Secretary of the Aliparamba Grama Panchayat, Malappuram district, directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.2,82,457/- as per Sections 239 and 240 of Kerala Panchayath Raj Act, 1994, since health issues have occurred consequent to the disposal of waste by the petitioner.

3. The prime case projected by the petitioner is that, before quantification of any such amount, petitioner was not served with any notice and thereupon, the action of the Panchayat is in violation of principles of natural justice. It is also submitted that, petitioner was not aware of any such WP(C).No. 33532 of 2016 3 issues and therefore, the damages that have been quantified without any information to the petitioner is arbitrary and illegal.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the pleadings and the documents on record.

5. Taking into account, the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, there will be a direction to the Secretary of the Panchayat to treat Ext.P1 as initial demand notice, enabling the petitioner to file objection to the same. If the petitioner makes any objection within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment to the Secretary of the Panchayat, it shall be considered and finalized in accordance with law, after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, at the earliest and at any rate, within a month from the date of receipt of objection from the petitioner.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE uu 16.01.2019 WP(C).No. 33532 of 2016 4 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 23.06.2016 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court