Leave Granted


i

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION ( CIVIL ) 

No.25017 of 2015 


The Special Leave Petition of the Petitioner most respectfully showeth:

1. The Petitioner above named respectfully submits this petition seeking special leave to appeal against the judgment dated 04 March 2015 ofthe Honourable High Court of Kerala in O P ( c ) No. 1819 of 2014  allowing the above OP and finally disposing of the case.
( a ) No letters patent appeal or writ appeal lies against the impugned judgment and the said remedy has not been availed.


2. QUESTIONS OF LAW: The following questions of the law arise for consideration by this Hon'ble Court :
( 1 ) The legality of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam accepting the contention of the 1st Respondent that he has complied with the stipulations of the Hon'ble Lok Adalath Award ( Page 55 ) of “demolishing the existing building possessing the rubber sheeting machinery” when an identical structure with the rubber sheeting machinery in situ, and therefore with the same functionality and polluting potential, is occupying exactly the same space as the structure to be demolished.
( a ) Annexure P-5 ( Page ) is a photograph of the structure marked out for demolition by the award of the Hon'ble Lok Adalath
( b ) Annexure P-9 ( Page ) is a photograph of the structure existing at the very same spot as on date.
( c ) An Interim Application under Order XXI Rule 3. ( 1 ) ( d ) ( ii ) of the SCI Rules 2013 is being made by this Petitioner seeking permission for producing a couple of photographs, the first one of the building marked out for demolition as it existed at the time of the award marked Annexure P-19 and a second one of the building and the second one of the structure existing exactly on the very same spot marked Annexure P-20, so as to give a better picture of the ground realities to this Honourable Court.
This Petitioner most humbly begs of the Honourable Court to be allowed to highlight the following aspects of the case in the above context:
( i ) The award was in view of a complaint, Annexure P-2 ( Page ) this Petitioner had made to the local body in view of the atmospheric pollution that he was facing. Therein he had invoked the special provisions in the Kerala Panchayath Building Rule 2011 vide Rule No. 61 ( 3 ) ( Page ) for buildings where noxious chemicals are being handled.
( ii ) The award, precise and to the point drawn up by the the Hon'ble Lok Adalath specifically targets the particular problem that the Petitioner was facing.
( iii ) The award is the means to an end; and not the end in itself as is being made out by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam.
This Petitioner's humble contention in the above context is that the award has to be enforced in both letter and spirit and that the principles of natural justice ought to be respected.


( 2 ) The legality of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam condoning the action of the 2nd Respondent, the local body, Karakulam Grama Panchayath, of granting a new permit for an identical building with the very same functionality and polluting potential as the one marked out for demolition by the award of the Honourable Lok Adalath at exactly the same spot.
( i ) To put things in the proper perspective this petitioner may be allowed to highlight the following aspects of the case :-
( a ) The local body, the 2nd Respondent, had come up with a building permit Annexure P-8 ( Page ) in less than 50 days of the award date, that is, well within the three months' grace.
( b ) The approved plan for the above building, Annexure P-6 (Page ) shows that it was for an identical building which when built will occupy the very same space as the structure to be demolished and has the very same configuration as the old one.
( ii ) The fact of the matter is that the plan and the building permit were not meant for execution but to mask evidence that the award of the Hon'ble Lok Adalath was not executed.
( a ) Rather than demolish the structure, the 1st Respondent, renovated it and at a later date claimed that what was present was the new building constructed according to the plan and the permit issued by the Panchayath after demolishing the original structure.
( b ) The Panchayath affirming under oath that the structure has been demolished obviously was part of the deal.
( iii ) The end result is that the original structure marked out for demolition is standing tall at the very same spot with a fresh coating of cement mortar and paint and brand new sheets for the roof as depicted in Annexure P-9 ( Page ).
( a ) If the 1st Respondent could “eat the cake and have it as well” it was all kind courtesy the obliging local body.
In the above context this Petitioner humbly begs to further submit as follows:
( iv ) Accepting for argument's sake that the structure was demolished, and was rebuilt, the following questions crop up in the humble mind of this Petitioner:
( a ) What purpose did the demolition serve if the structure was to be rebuilt with the same polluting potential as the old structure immediately and at the very same spot ?
( b ) How did the demolition help this Petitioner ?
( c ) What was the purpose of the holding of the Lok Adalath and the award ?
( v ) The reality is that kind courtesy the intervention of the 2nd Respondent, the Karakulam Grama Panchayath the whole exercise of the Lok Adalath and the Legal Services Authority has become an exercise in futility; the gentlemen have made a mockery of the judicial process as such.
( a ) The panchayath by issuing the permit has made the award of the Honourable Lok Adalath Redundant.
( b ) Article 21 (2) of the legal services authority act 1987 states that “Every award made by a Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties to the dispute, and no appeal shall lie to any court against the award”.
The relevant clauses of the Legal Services Authorities Act 1987 is appended herewith as APPENDIX B ( Page ).
( b ) The 2nd Respondent, Karakulam Grama Panchayath, by granting the building permit No.388/2013-14 dt 09.10.2013 for “the new construction” of an identical building at the very same site, is, for all practical purposes, countermanding the award of the Lok Adalath which is “final and binding” as per rules.
The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam is condoning the action.
( 3 ) The legality of the the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam brushing aside, based on conjectures and without giving any cogent reasons, the well reasoned finding of the Lower Court:
( i ) The Honourable Principal Munseef Court, Nedumangad in Para 6 of their orders in EP No.10 of 2014 Annexure P-11 says : “Admittedly the structure was not demolished. That was born out from the photographs produced in the case. …..” thus providing material evidence for the finding. ( Page ).
( ii ) However the the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam ignores the finding of the Lower Court and in Para 18 of impugned judgement concludes that “.......the claim made by the Respondent that the old structure has not been demolished, cannot be accepted for more reason than one …..... . . . ” ( Page - 9 )
This Petitioner most humbly begs of this Honourable Court to be allowed to submit as follows in the above context:
( iii ) As far as this Petitioner's information goes, in the case of a Petition under Article 227, like OP (c ) No.1819/2014 of the the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, it is not within the purview of the High Court to set aside or ignore the well reasoned finding of the Lower Court , especially so, when it is substantiated by material evidence as in the above mentioned instance.
The following orders relevant in this regard are appended herewith in APPENDIX C (Page )
( a ) Duruwala Mani Nariman v. Bhatena Phiroz, N., AIR 1991 SC 1494 : (1991) 3SCC 14L
( b ) Khimji Vidhu v. Premier High School, AIR 2000 SC 3495.
( c ) Jasbeer singh v. state of punjab (2006) 8SCC 294, 299-301 Para 10to 14)

( iv ) None of the ”more than one reasons” of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam for “not accepting the claim made by the Respondent that the old structure has not been demolished” vide Para 13 of the Impugned Judgment ( Page ) will stand the scrutiny of law as elaborated in Grounds Para ( 1 ) ( ii ) (Page ).
3. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 3(2):
The Petitioner slates that no other petition seeking leave to appeal has been filed by him against the impugned judgment.
4. DFCLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 5:
The Annexures produced along with the SLP are true copies of the pleadings/documents which formed part of the records of the case in the Court below against whose order the leave to appeal is sought for in this petition.


5. GROUNDS:
The Petitioner prefers this petition for Special Leave to appeal against the judgement dated 04.03.2015 of the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam in their OP (c ) No.18119 of 2014 in view of the legal infirmities, Errors on the face of the record, factual errors and contradictions therein, amongst other, GROUNDS:
( 1 ) The conclusion of the the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Para 13. of their Impugned Judgement “the claim that the structure ( existing now) is not a new structure and continues to be the old one cannot be accepted ” ( Page 7 ), is Erroneous and illegal.
( i ) The Honourable Principal Principal Munseef Court, Nedumangad Nedumangad in Para 6 of their orders in EP No.10 of 2014, Exhibit P-10 ( Page ) says : “Admittedly the structure was not demolished. That was born out from the photographs produced in the case. …..” thus providing material evidence for the finding.
( a ) In the case of a petition under Article 227 like OP (c ) No.1819/2014 it is not within the prowess of the High Court to set aside or ignore the well reasoned finding of the Lower Court especially so when it is substantiated by material evidence as in the above mentioned instance vide Appendix C ( Page ).
( ii ) None of the ”more than one reasons” of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam for “not accepting the claim made by the Respondent that the old structure has not been demolished” vide Para 18 of the Impugned Judgment ( Page ) will stand the scrutiny of law.
A glaring example is the “simple reason” given vide Para 13. of the impugned judgment ( Page ) for NOT accepting that “ the structure is the old one itself ”
viz: “as per Ext. P10, the Amin was deputed to demolish the structure. There is no reason to believe that the Amin would not have done his job”.
In the above context, this Petitioner would beg to be allowed to bring the following to the kind attention of the Honourable Court:
( a ) As late as 07.8.2014, that is long after the amin was deputed to demolish the building, the Respondent in the OP ( C ) No.1819 of 2014 of the the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam had prayed for stay of the order of demolition as interim relief. Annexure P-2( Page ). Obviously the structure was existing on that date.
( b ) In their order dated 8.8.2014 the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam had stayed the order of demolition of the building allowing an interim relief prayed for in the original OP ( C ) No.1819 of 2014 of the Kerala high court and ever since has been renewing the stay almost every month till the case was finally disposed of.
( c ) This Petitioner in his profound ignorance of legal norms is made to wonder whether it is possible for the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam to stay an order that has already been executed, that too time and again.
( d ) The fact of the matter is that the Hon'ble Principal Principal Munseef Court, Nedumangad had themselves put the execution order on hold allowing a petition from the 1st Respondent in the present Special Leave Petition as mentioned in ( Page ) list of dates 21.7.2014.
( iii ) What remains of the ”more than one reasons” vide supra are the statement made by the Panchayath Secretary and the advocate Commissioner.
( a ) It is a pity that the Honourable High Court chose the unsubstantiated statements of the Panchayath Secretary and the Advocate Commissioner made with ulterior motives to the reasoned finding of a member of the subordinate judiciary of the state.
The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam ought to have accepted the view of the Honourable Principal Munseef Court, Nedumangad.


( 2 ) The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in Para 21 of their judgement in OP (c ) No.19819 of 2014 dated 04 march 2015 states as follows: “. . . . . . the finding of the court below that no new structure can be put up in the property is set aside ”, an error in the face of the record.
No where in Annexure P-11, ( Page ) the decision by the lower court, the Honourable Principal Munseef Court, Nedumangad ( Page ) is it said that “no new structure can be put up in the property“.


( 3 ) Critical measurements quoted in Para 5. of the Judgment are not correct - another error in the face of record as is obvious from Annexure P-7 ( Page 58 ) and Annexure P- ( Page 57 ).


( 4 ) Para 2. of the Impugned judgement says “. . . . . As per Ext. P3 award, the Petitioner had undertaken to demolish the unauthorised structure.” However, the phrase “unauthorised structure” do not find a place in the award at all.
( i ) The award of the Honourable Lok Adalath is very specific and pin points “the building possessing the rubber sheeting machinery” is to be demolished. This was in view of the atmospheric air pollution caused as per the complaint lodged with the Local Body ( Page
( ii ) It has been unanimously accepted by all parties to the OP that the “building possessing the rubber sheeting machinery” is still standing tall at the very same spot with the rubber sheeting machinery in situ and is obvious from Annexure P-9 ( Page
( iii ) Para 19 of the impugned judgement states “ . . . . Of course it is true that two manual rubber making machined are installed in the structure put up now in the property of the petitioner . . . . .” ( Page 9 ).
( iv ) The contention that the Respondent has complied with the award of the Lok Adalath and demolished the building when the structure itself is standing on the same spot with the rubber sheet making machinery in situ is Absurd.
The acceptance of the above contention as genuine, this Petitioner is afraid, will amount to perverting the judicial process as such.
( 5 ) The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam ought not to have taken the statements of the secretary seriously at all in view of the following:
( i ) Within 13 kilometers from the center of Thiruvananthapuram city, the state capital, what exists in the locality where the Petitioner lives is a primitive society wherein only money and muscle power matters.
( ii ) The Karakulam Grama Panchayath, this Respondent finds is a law unto themselves and as is their wont, a poor man is being run roughshod over by the local body with their petty politicking. The whims of the rich men get priority over the basic essentials for healthy living of an ordinary mortal.
( iii ) This Respondent is convinced that the Karakulam Panchayath authorities were conniving with the 1st Respondent in sabotaging the process of law.
( a ) The so called “facts” in the original petition mentions of “specific assurances” the Panchayath Secretary made to the Petitioner which were made on the sly and without the knowledge of this Respondent vide Annexure P3 ( Page ).
( b ) By issuing the permit for a “rubber sheet processing and rolling shed” superimposed on the old structure the Panchayath Secretary for all practical purposes was regularising a building marked out for demolition at the Honourable Lok Adalath.
( c ) The malafide intentions are obvious from the approved plan for the above building Exhibit P6 ( Page ):
I. It was for a structure identical to the one marked out for demolition by the award of the Honourable Lok Adalath.
II. It was to occupy the same space as the structure marked out to be demolished i.e. it was to coincide with the structure to be demolished
III. It was meant for a rubber sheet processing and rolling shed and hence had the same functionality and polluting potential as the old structure.
IV. It was issued well within the three months grace to execute the award.
V. The permit issued had made redundant the Award of the Hon'ble Lok Adalath; there was no need to go ahead with the demolition any more!
( d ) The 1st Respondent promptly renovated the old structure and claimed that he had demolished the old structure and the identical building standing exactly on the same spot is a new one constructed according to the permit issued by the panchayath.
( e ) Certifying that the old structure was demolished must have been part of the deal.
( f ) If the Petitioner could “eat the cake and have it as well” it is all kind courtesy the Panchayath.
( iv ) This Petitioner is afraid that the unholy nexus of the 1st and 2nd respondents is making a mockery of the judicial process as such.
This Petitioner's humble submission to this Hon'ble Court is that the statements made by the Panchayath Secretary ought not to have been taken seriously at all by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam for the local body that is Karakulam Panchayath had already burnt their boats and would go to any extent to save their skin.
( 6 ) The Panchayath Secretary's word is not the law as regards whether the structure as it exists now is legal or not – The Panchayath has to follow the rules in the Kerala Panchayath Building Rules 2011 vide APPENDIX A ( Page ) in this regard.
( i ) The Karakulam Grama Panchayath Secretary's ignorance of the rules and regulations has been completely exposed more than once in the past by this petitioner and the gentleman had to eat humble pie.
( ii ) The very humble submission of this Petitioner to this Honourable Court is that when the executive errs it is for the Hon'ble Courts to pull them up.
( 7 ) The advocate commissioner's report is a case of flagrante delicto as elaborated in Annexure P-18 ( Page ).
( i ) The appointment of the commissioner to look into the pollution aspect is contradictory to the very norms set by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in their own judgement as elaborated in Para ( 8 ) infra ( Page ) .
( ii ) The learned lawyer has no locus standi to comment on the innocuousness or otherwise of the controversial structure . The statements made by the advocate in his report are against basic scientific principles and are irrelevant as far as the matter of the OP (c ) No.1819 of 2014 of the Kerala High Court is concerned.
( iii ) It is a pity that the obvious lies of the commission report has been elevated to the level of gospel truths by incorporating them into the judgement of the Honourable High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam; this in spite of the “severe criticism leveled against the commissioner's report” by this Petitioner as mentioned in Para 10. of the judgement ( Page ).
( iv ) Of sinister significance is the fact that this can tarnish the image of the higher judiciary of the state for the falsehood is obvious to even a student of the 8th class who has seen the location of the controversial structure.
The least this humble Petitioner would have expected of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam is to have rejected the same as inadmissible.


( 8 ) Contradictions Galore, with instances like the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam on the one hand staying the demolition and on the other making a very important conclusion on the contention that “there is no reason to believe that the Amin would not have done his job” ( of demolishing the structure ) Grounds Para ( 1 ) (ii ) ( a ) ( Page ).
In this regard this Petitioner most humbly begs to submit further as follows:
( i ) When he had problem with a hazardous building on the neighbouring property belonging to the 1st Respondent this Petitioner had approached the concerned statutory authority viz. the Karakulam Panchayath, the 2nd Respondent, on the matter of the atmospheric air pollution caused by the rubber sheet processing and rolling shed invoking built in protection vide the relevant clauses in the Kerala Panchayath building rules for relief as elaborated in detail in his original complaint addressed to the secretary Annexure P1 ( Page ).
( a ) However the the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in their judgement in OP (c ) No. 1819 of 2014 vide Para 18 ( Page 8 ) chides this hapless Petitioner :-
“If the Respondent ( meaning the present Petitioner before the Honourable Supreme Court ) had such a case ( vide supra ) he ought to have approached the authorities concerned for appropriate reliefs and it is not for this court ( meaning the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam ) to probe into those matters when there are statutory authorities for that purpose who are more competent and well equipped to go into these aspects.”
In the above context this Petitioner would most humbly beg to submit as follows:
( ii ) It was NOT this Petitioner but the 1st Respondent in this Special Leave Petition, who approached the the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam with OP (c ) No.1819 of 2014, in an effort to torpedo the legal process of law enforcement.
( iii ) This happened upon the concerned judicial authority deciding to execute through the process of court the Honourable Lok Adalath award, the end result of this Petitioner's complaint to the local body.
( a ) This Respondent's contention from the very beginning as evident from his Counter Affidavit` Annexure P3 ( Page ) was that the above OP, with most of the so called “facts” mentioned therein belonging to the realm of fiction, ought never to have seen the light of day.
( b ) However the Honourable High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam admitted the petition and stayed the execution of the award.
( iv ) In spite of the fact that “ it is not for this court to probe into those matters ” (as per Para 18. of the judgement) the Honourable Court appoints a commissioner to probe into those very matters.
( v ) Again, the Commissioner so appointed “to probe into those matters” is just another lawyer, and NOT one of those “who are more competent and well equipped to go into these aspects” vide Para 18. of the judgement ( Page ).
( vi ) But in spite of the fact that “those matters” have already been dealt with by the Hon'ble Lok Adalath, the High Court decides that the offending structure is innocuous there by contradicting the Lok Adalath on the basis of the report of advocate commissioner who is not competent to to go into those aspect and whose integrity has been questioned on the basis of facts vide Annexure P-18 ( Page ).
( vi ) The decision on the matter of the petition was made almost solely on the basis of the tainted report of the advocate commissioner; the petition was allowed and the case disposed of finally within days of the commissioner's report.
“The powers conferred on the High Court under article 227 of the constitution is to advance justice and not to thwart it.” (AIR 2002 SC 33).

( 9 ) ( i ) In Para 18. of their judgement ( Page 9 ) the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam Graciously says “ . . . . . if any of the acts committed by the Petitioner causes nuisance, the Respondent can certainly agitate the issue.“
( ii ) Again vide Para 22 the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam repeats “in future if any nuisance is caused by the activity of operating machinery, certainly, it will be open for the Respondent to approach authorities concerned for redressal of his grievances.”
Things have come a full circle and the Petitioner is free to start from the beginning and make another complaint like the one in Annexure P-2 ( Page ) to the powers that be.

( 10 ) In CONCLUSION this Petitioner most humbly begs to submit to this Honourable Court that the Impugned Judgement dated 04.3.2015 of the the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in OP ( C ) No. 1819 of 2015 allowing the petition and finally disposing of the case, is against law, the weight of evidence and the probabilities of the case, flouts the basic principles of natural justice and is contrary to elements of common logic.

6. GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF:
Not Applicable.
7. MAIN PRAYER:
In view of the above this Petitioner's most humble prayer is that this Honourable Court may be pleased to :
I. Grant Special Leave to appeal against the impugned judgement dated 04.3.2015 of the High Court of Kerala in their OP (c ) No.1819 of 2014 and
II. Pass such other orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

8. INTERIM RELIEF: None
AND FOR THE ABOVE ACT OF KINDNESS THIS PETITIONER AS DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY,
Place: New Delhi
Date: 29 june 2015
sd .
( Cheriyath Jyothi )
Petitioner in Person

 IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT
it is
 "Kerala Kanoon "

 SYNOPSIS AND LIST OF DATES
In OP (c ) No.1819 of 2014 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala the 1st Respondent in this present petition had challenged the orders of the Honourable Principal Munseef Court Nedumangad Thiruvananthapuram in their EP No. 10 of 2014 to execute through the process of the Court an Award in PL No. 2746/2013 of the Hon'ble Lok Adalath of the Thiruvananthapuram District Legal Services Authority.

This Petitioner is the 1st Respondent in the above OP.

Aggrieved by the judgement dated March 04, 2014 of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in the above OP this Petitioner is preferring this Special Leave Petition to appeal against the above Judgment.
12.06.2011:
This Petitioner takes up permanent residence in his humble abode “the Cloister”, a residential building, No. KP V/168 of the Karakulam Grama Panchayath, coming under Venkode B.O., of Vattappara S.O., of Thiruvananthapuram – 695028, Kerala state.
( 1 ) Within no time he becomes aware of the rubber sheet processing and rolling shed, in the adjacent property belonging to the 1st Respondent, where noxio-us chemicals are handled, as the source of the stink that was pervading the whole area.
( 2 ) A sketch map of the locale highlighting the salient features with regard to the matter of the petition is reproduced herewith and marked ANNEXURE P-1 ( Page 43 ).
( i ) Of moment therein, amongst others, is the fact that the 1st Respondent had made the rubber sheet making facility at the further most corner of his property, at the maximum distance (more than 30 Meters ) possible from his residence in the diagonally opposite corner of the same plot of land.
( ii ) Obviously the Respondent would not have wanted the rubber sheet making facility any where near his living quarters.
( 3 ) This Petitioner made a personal request to the 1st Respondent who is the owner of the rubber sheet manufacturing plant to do some thing about the atmospheric pollution. There was no positive response.
06.5.2013 :
This Petitioner lodges a formal complaint with the Local Body, the Karakulam Grama Panchayath, the 2nd Respondent in this present petition regarding the nuisance caused and for recourse.
( 1 ) Photo copy of the above complaint along with a typed copy is produced herewith and marked ANNEXURE P-2 (Page 44-48 ).
( 2 ) The above complaint was made by this Petitioner in view of the air pollution ( Page 48 ) by the rubber sheet manufacturing plant and was intended to restore one of the basic essentials for healthy living to him.
( i ) This was to be effected using the built in protection provided in such cases in the Kerala Panchayath Building Rules 2011.


The rules of the Kerala Panchayath Building Rules ( KPBR) 2011 relevant in the matter are appended herein as APPENDIX A (Page 39 – 40 ).
( ii ) This Petitioner had invoked Rule No. 61 (3) of the special provisions for certain occupancy buildings in Kerala Panchayath Building Rules 2011 in his complaint This rule stipulates that the minimum width of open yard all round the building where noxious chemicals are handled, like the one processing rubber latex, shall be 10 Meters (Page 40 ).
( iii ) All that was expected of the 1st Respondent was to comply with the regulations and ensure that the open yard, is 10 meters on the side adjacent to this Petitioner's property which as it existed then was just 75 centimeters only.
( iv ) The term yard is as defined in Rule 2. ( 2 ) ( dj ) of the Kerala Panchayath Building Rules 2011 vide Appendix A (Page39)
( 3 ) A Lok Adalath of the District Legal Services Authority, Thiruvananthapuram held specifically for the Karakulam Grama Panchayath, took cognizance of the case at a later date.
This was in the context of the 1st Respondent not complying with the directions of the local body to demolish the building.

23.8.2013:
The Honourable Lok Adalath takes up the case.
( 1 ) At the Adalath, over and above the details vide Annexure P-2 (Page 44 – 48 ) the Petitioner produced copies of photographs relevant in the context of the atmospheric pollution being caused by the plant. The very same photographs are part of the records in OP ( C ) No.1819 of 2014 of the the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala and are reproduced herewith as ANNEXURE P-3 (Page 49 - 51 )
( i ) After hearing both parties the Honourable Lok Adalath formulated the terms of a possible settlement with the owner of the rubber-sheet manufacturing plant agreeing to demolish the offending structure.
( ii ) At this point the owner, the first Respondent in this Special Leave Petition, asked for three months time to carry out the demolition and this condition was incorporated in the terms of the settlement.
( 2 ) Photocopy of the resultant award along with a typed copy is produced herewith and marked ANNEXURE P-4 ( Page 52 - 55 ).
( i ) Therein the 1st Respondent agreed to “demolish the building possessing the rubber sheeting machinery” within three months.
( ii ) Except for the three months grace there were no strings attached one way or the other.
( 3 ) A photograph of the building marked out for demolition as it existed then is produced herewith and marked ANNEXURE P-5 (Page 56 ).
9.10.2013:
Unknown to this Petitioner the the 2nd Respondent in this present Special Leave Petition, the Karakulam Grama Panchayath issues a building permit to the 1st Respondent making the award of the Hon'ble Lok Adalath redundant.
( 1 ) The story unfolding is of the local body conniving with the 1st Respondent in sabotaging the judicial process.
( 2 ) A copy of the approved plan for the new building is produced herewith and marked ANNEXURE P-6 ( Page 57 ).
A closeup of part of the plan showing the details of the building is produced herewith and marked ANNEXURE P-7 ( Page 58 ).
The approved plan shows that:-
( i ) It was for building a rubber sheet processing and rolling shed.
( ii ) At the time of making the plan the original structure was existing as evidenced by a miniscule portion of a few centimeters of the old structure jutting out on the western side and marked in the plan as “existing old shed to be demolished” ( Page 58 ).
( iii ) The planned building completely overlaps the original structure except for the approximately 30 Centimeters of the old structure shown jutting out from the western side of the planned building mentioned above.
( iv ) The plan was for a building identical to the structure to be demolished in every respect and was meant to occupy the same space as the old structure.
( 3 ) Thus this Petitioner, has strong reason to believe, that the intent of the plan was not constructing a new structure but masking the structure to be demolished and that way destroying evidence that the structure was never demolished.
( 4 ) The 1st Respondent, then renovated the old structure and, at a later stage, claimed that what was present was the new building constructed according to the plan and the building permit issued by the Panchayath after demolishing the old structure.
( 5 ) A photocopy of the building permit dated 09.10.2013 issued by the 2nd Respondent along with typed copy is produced herewith and marked ANNEXURE P-8 ( Page 59 - 61).
( i ) The permit issued was for a residential building.
( ii ) “Group A1- Residential building shall include any building in which sleeping accommodation is provided for normal residential purpose.” vide Rule 34. ( 3 ) ( a ) of Kerala Panchayath Building Rules 2011 Appendix A ( Page 40).
( iii ) A photograph of the “residential building” constructed as per the permit issued by the Karakulam Grama Panchayath is produced herewith and marked ANNEXURE P-9 ( Page 62 ).
( iii ) Instead of sleeping accommodation as stipulated in the Kerala Panchayath Building Rules 2011 what it had was rubber sheet making machinery.
( 6 ) What had happened on ground is the 2nd Respondent in this petition, the local body, regularizing the building already marked out for demolition by the award of the Hon'ble Lok Adalath in order to save a local bigwig from the “ignominy” of submitting to the law of the land and executing the award.
The Karakulam Grama Panchayath is a law unto themselves.
25.1. 2014:
This Petitioner files EP No.10 of 2014 in the Honourable Principal Munseef Court Nedumangad, Thiruvananthapuram, the executing authority. A copy of the above EP dated 25.1.2014 is produced herewith and marked ANNEXURE P-10 ( Page 63 - 65 ).
( i ) The EP was in view of the fact that building possessing the rubber sheeting machinery with the machinery in situ was standing tall at the exact site even long after the three months' grace as evidenced by Annexure P-9 ( Page 62).
( ii ) In the course of the hearing of the EP the the 1st Respondent in this Special Leave Petition came up with the story that he had demolished the structure and what is existing on ground is the one built as per the building permit issued by the Panchayath.
( iii ) It was at this moment that this Petitioner for the first time came to know of the new building plan and the permit issued by the 2nd Respondent.
17.7. 2014:
Orders of the Honourable Principal Munseef Court in EP No.10/2014.
( 1 ) Photocopy of the orders dated 17.7.2014 in EP No.10/2014 of the Honourable Principal Munseef Court, Nedumangad along with typed copy is produced herewith and marked ANNEXURE P-11 ( Page 66 – 72 ).
( i ) Therein the Honourable Principal Munseef, Nedumangad sees through the trickery and finds that the structure was never demolished vide para 6 of Annexure P-11 ( Page 68 ).
( ii ) The Honourable Principal Munseef Nedumangad decides that the execution has to be carried out through the process of the court and directs the Amin to demolish the structure on 22.7.2014 and report on 23.7.2014.
21.7.2014:
The Honourable Principal Munseef, Nedumangad obliges the 1st Respondent and keeps the demolition order in abeyance.
( i ) This was in view of the 1st Respondent in this Special Leave Petition praying for time to move the Kerala High Court before going ahead with the demolition, through a petition hand written in the vernacular ( Malayalam).
07.8. 2014:
The 1st Respondent in this Special Leave Petition moves the Honourable high Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in OP (c ) No.1819 of 2014 under article 227 of the constitution. Copy of the above petition is produced herewith and marked ANNEXURE P-12 ( Page 73 – 79 )
( i ) The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam admits the petition and issues notice to this Petitioner, and
( ii ) Stays the order of demolition of the building in EP No. 10/2014 on the file of the Honourable Principal Munseef Court Nedumangad in response to the interim relief prayed for in OP (c ) No.1819 of 2014 of the Kerala High Court.
26.9.2014:
This Petitioner files a Counter Affidavit in the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. Copy of the above counter affidavit dated 26.9.2014 is produced herewith and marked ANNEXURE P-13 (Page 95 - 98 ).
( 1 ) In his counter affidavit this Petitioner describes the so called “facts” of the OP as belonging to the realm of fiction and laments that the above petition ought not to have seen the light of the day.
( 2 ) Also, in the Grounds therein he had elaborated on:
( i ) How he was facing a genuine grievance ( Page 86 - 87)
( ii ) The scientific aspects of atmospheric pollution ( Page 86 – 87 )
( iii ) and explained in detail about the built in safeguards in the Kerala Panchayath building rules 2011 in this regard ( Page 88 )

11.10.2014:
The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam impleads Karakulam Grama Panchayath as addl 2nd Respondent.
04.11.2014:
In the context of the impleading, this Petitioner's files a statement dated 04.11. 2014 copy of which is produced herewith and marked ANNEXURE P-14 ( Page 95 – 98 )
( 1 ) Therein with the help of Annexure P-5 ( Page 56 & 62) and Annexure P-9 this Petitioner had brought to the attention of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam the following, amongst other, facts:
( i ) In response to a plan for “rubber sheet processing and rolling shed” Annexure P-6 ( Page 57 ) the Panchayath has issued a permit for a residential building Annexure P-8 ( Page 59 ).
( ii ) The residential building so constructed, instead of sleeping accommodation as stipulated by the Kerala Panchayath Building Rules 2011, had rubber sheet making machinery installed obvious from Annexure P-9 ( Page 62 ).
09.01.2015 :
The panchayath files an affidavit. Copy of the above affidavit is produced herewith and marked ANNEXURE P-15 ( page 99 – 100 )
30.01.2015:
This Petitioner files objection to the statement made by the Panchayath in their affidavit. Copy of the above statement dated 30.1.2015 is produced herewith and marked ANNEXURE P-16 ( Page 101 -110 ).
( 1 ) Therein this Petitioner alleges of the existence of an unholy nexus between the 1st and 2nd Respondents intended to sabotage the judicial process .
( i ) In the above context the Petitioner also makes a mention of the primitive society at the locale where this Petitioner is living for whom only money and muscle power matters
and
( ii ) the local body following suite and preferring the whims of a rich man over the basic essentials for healthy living of an ordinary mortal.
02.02.2015 :
The Hon'ble High Court appoints a commissioner “to prepare a sketch and submit a report about the building in question and also the activities being carried out there.”
18.02.2015 :
The advocate commissioner submits his report dated 18.2.2015 along with a “sketch” as directed by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam.
Copy of the commissioners report is produced herewith and marked ANNEXURE P-17 ( Page 111 to 113 )

27.02.2015 :
This Petitioner files objection to the report of the advocate commissioner. Copy of the above objection dated 27.2.2015 filed by this Petitioner is produced herewith and marked ANNEXURE P-18 ( Page 114 to 120 ).
Therein this Petitioner brings to the notice of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala:
(i) the errors in the face of the record in the report,
(ii) that the commissioner had falsified the readings in the report vide Annexure P-7 ( Page 58 )
(iii) that the findings of the commissioner are unscientific and/or irrelevant as far as the matter of the OP was concerned
(iv) that the report is a prejudiced one
and politely suggested that the report ought to be ignored.
( 3 ) The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam refuses to take cognizance of the objections raised by this Petitioner to the report of the Advocate Commissioner.
04.3. 2015:
The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam allows the petition and finally disposes of the case vide their judgement dated 04.3.2015.
( i ) Of note here is that the decision was almost solely based on the “findings” of the advocate commissioner.
( ii ) The flagrant falsehoods in the report of the advocate commissioner find their place in the above judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam as solemn truths.

30.6.2015:
In view of the injustice meted out to him by the impugned judgement dated 04.3.2015 of the the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam and as the only resort available to this Petitioner in this case, he prefers the present Special Leave Petition.
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)