S VENUGOPAL Vs. M. MUHAMMAD HUWAIZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above Contempt of Court Case has been filed alleging noncompliance of the directions issued in Annexure A judgment dated 23.03.2020 in W.P.(C) No.9088 of 2020. The orders and directions issued by this Court in paragraph 5 and 6 of Annexure A judgment reads as follows:

(2.) After receipt of Annexure A judgment, the respondent Secretary of the Pala Municipality has informed the petitioner as per Annexure D letter dated 10.06.2020 that even before rendering of Annexure A judgment dated 23.03.2020, the Municipal Council of the respondent Municipality has already taken resolution No.4 on 04.03.2019 that no further steps need to be taken on the request of the petitioner for excluding the subject property from the Asset Register of the Municipality. Thereafter, when the Contempt of Court Case has came up for consideration on 09.06.2020, Sri. Sujith Mathew Jose, learned standing counsel for Pala Municipality appearing for the respondent submitted based on the instructions that steps would be immediately taken by the respondent Municipality to comply the directions of this Court in Annexure A judgment. Now the respondent Secretary of the Municipality has filed an affidavit dated 12.08.2020. Paragraph 6 and 7 of the said affidavit reads as follows:

(3.) Sri.P.K. Ravi Sankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Resolution No.4 dated 04.03.2019 said to have been taken by the Municipal Council of the respondent Municipality as referred to as item No.2 in Annexure D letter 10.06.2019 has been rendered without prior opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and further that the authority to take decision on the request to exclude the property from the Asset Register is the Secretary of the Municipality in as much as Section 211(1) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 confers the sole original power to include a property in the Asset Register on the Secretary of the Municipality concerned and therefore the power to exclude the property from the Asset Register should also be vested only with the Secretary of the Municipality as the original authority going by well settled principles emanating from the provisions of the General Clauses Act that the power to grant would also include the power to revoke etc. Further it is pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner that the Municipal Council may have appellate power in case any person aggrieved files appeal against the decision of the Secretary. Sri.Sujith Mathew, learned standing counsel appearing for the Municipality would submit based on the instructions that respondent Secretary of the Municipality would pass orders in the matter strictly in conformity with the directions and orders passed in Annexure A judgment and untrammelled and uninfluenced in any manner by the resolution No.4 dated 04.03.2019 taken by the Municipal Council which is referred to as item No.2 of Annexure D letter dated 10.06.2019. The above said submission made on the part of the respondent Municipality is recorded. However, the stand taken in paragraph 7 of the said affidavit dated 12.08.20 filed by the respondent Municipality may give an impression as if the decision to be taken by the respondent Municipal Secretary may require confirmation or approval by the Municipal Council. In order to avoid any ambiguity in that regard and since the said resolution dated 04.03.2019 has been passed by the Municipal Council in patent violation of principles of natural justice and since the original authority in that matter is the Secretary of the Municipality, it is also ordered in the interest of justice that the said resolution No.4 dated 04.03.2019 rendered by the Municipal Council will stand set aside. The said direction has been issued only to enable respondent Secretary of the Municipality to comply with directions in Annexure A judgment, untrammelled and uninfluenced in any manner by the said decision earlier taken by the said Municipal Council.