Kerala High Court
Bro.Joseph Antony vs The Mookkannoor Grama Panchayath on 17 July, 2020
Author: Anu Sivaraman
Bench: Anu Sivaraman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2020 / 26TH ASHADHA, 1942
WP(C).No.14477 OF 2020(H)
PETITIONER:
BRO.JOSEPH ANTONY
AGED 55 YEARS
THE BROTHER SUPERIOR/PROVINCIAL CST BROTHERS,
THE CONGREGATION OF ST.THERESE, ANGAMALY,
ERNAKULAM, PIN-683 577.
BY ADV. SRI.K.R.VINOD
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE MOOKKANNOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH
EZHATTUMUMUGHAM ROAD, MOOKKANNOOR,
PIN-683 577, REP BY ITS SECRETARY.
2 THE SECRETARY
THE MOOKKANNOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
EZHATTUMUMUGHAM ROAD, MOOKKANNOOR, PIN-683 577.
3 BRO.JOSEPH KONGOLA
CST GENERALATE, CST BROTHERS, THE CONGREGTION OF
ST.THERESE, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM- 683 573.
BY ADV.S.SUDHEER KUMAR, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
17.07.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.14477 OF 2020(H)
2
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayers:-
"To issue a writ of mandamus against the 1 st and 2nd respondents to provide an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and to consider Exhibit P4 show cause submitted by the petitioner before passing any decision with respect to Exhibit P1 building permit of the petitioner."
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2.
3. In the light of the directions being issued, notice to the 3rd respondent in the writ petition is being dispensed with.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had obtained Ext.P1 building permit for the construction of a building in the year 2019 and the construction has proceeded considerably. In the meanwhile, allegedly on the basis of a complaint preferred by the 3 rd respondent, Ext.P3 show cause notice has been issued for the cancellation of the building permit. The learned counsel WP(C).No.14477 OF 2020(H) 3 for the petitioner submits that Ext.P2 decree of the Archbishop of Ernakulam and Angamali settled the rights of the parties and that the petitioner has absolute right over the property in terms of Ext.P2. The petitioner submitted Ext.P4 reply before the 2nd respondent Secretary and seeks that his reply may be considered, he may be granted an opportunity of personal hearing and orders may be passed only thereafter by the respondents 1 and 2.
5. The learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayath submits that the 2nd respondent will consider the reply submitted by the petitioner and that further steps will be taken only after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well.
6. Having heard the learned counsel on either side, I am of the opinion that the issue can be resolved, if Ext.P4 is considered with notice to the petitioner as well as the 3 rd respondent and after hearing their respective contentions. There will, accordingly, be a direction to the 2 nd respondent to take up Ext.P4 explanation submitted by the petitioner to WP(C).No.14477 OF 2020(H) 4 Ext.P3 show cause notice, issue notice to the petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent, hear the parties and to pass an appropriate orders, in accordance with law, taking note of the respective contentions. Further steps on the basis of Ext.P3 shall not be taken till orders are passed as directed above.
This writ petition is ordered accordingly.
sd/-
ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE bng/17.07.2020 WP(C).No.14477 OF 2020(H) 5 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 THE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT EXHIBIT P2 THE COPY OF THE DECREE DATED 19/5/2014 OF ARCH BISHOP ARCHIPARCHE OF ERNAKULAM-ANGAMALI.
EXHIBIT P3 THE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 8/7/20 ADDRESSED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 THE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 13/7/20 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 AGAINST EXT.P3 NOTICE.