If it is summoned by the Court then respondent needs to appear or represent them through counsel for opposition : High Court of Kerala
Court has validly served the respondent to be present in person or to be represented through counsel inferentially guiding to the impression that they have something to offer in opposition to the various reliefs sought for in this writ petition and was upheld by High Court of Kerala through the learned bench led by HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN in the case of THAHIRA N.P. v STATE OF KERALA (WP(C) NO. 6492 OF 2022) on 21st March, 2022. Facts of the case are that petitioners have approached seeking a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to answer the queries posed by them in Exts.P7 and P8, particularly as to whether they have any intention to acquire their property and as to how they can impose an embargo against its alienation by them, if there is any such. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that learned Senior Government Pleader said that it is for respondents 2 and 3 to reply to the petitioners and that the State of Kerala and its functionaries had no role to play, particularly because the proposal is one which is propounded by the Municipality. Endorsements on file reveal that even though summons from this Court have been validly served on respondents 2 and 3, they have chosen not to be present in person or to be represented through counsel; inferentially guiding me to the impression that they have nothing to offer in opposition to the various reliefs sought for in this writ petition. Court allowed the writ petition and direct the competent among respondents 2 and 3 to immediately take up Exts.P7 and P8 and hear the petitioners, thus culminating in an appropriate proceedings and action thereon – particularly with respect to the allegation of the petitioners that their property has not been acquired, but an embargo of alienation imposed against it, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.  Court directed the petitioners to mark appearance before the third respondent – Secretary of the Municipality, along with the certified copy of this judgment, at 11 a.m. on 25.03.2022.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN MONDAY THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2022 30TH PHALGUNA 1943 WP(C) NO. 6492 OF 2022 THAHIRA N.P. AGED 50 YEARS W O. ABDUL BASHEER GAREEB NAWAS KOLARI AMSOM KALLOOR DESOM MATTANNOOR P.O THALASSERY TALUK KANNUR DISTRICT PIN 670 702 ABDUL BASHEER AGED 61 YEARS W O. LATE ABDUL KHADER GAREEB NAWAS KOLARI AMSOM KALLOOR DESOM MATTANNOOR P.O THALASSERY TALUK KANNUR DISTRICT PIN 670 702 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001 THE MATTANUR MUNICIPALITY MUNICIPAL OFFICE MATTANNOOR KANNUR DISTRICT PIN 670 702 REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY MATTANNOOR MUNICIPALITY MUNICIPAL OFFICE MATTANNOOR KANNUR DISTRICT PIN 670 702 SMT. MABLE .C .KURIAN SR.G.P THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.03.2022 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 6492 OF 2022 The petitioners have approached this Court seeking a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to answer the queries posed by them in Exts.P7 and P8 particularly as to whether they have any intention to acquire their property and as to how they can impose an embargo against its alienation by them if there is any such. 2. The afore request of the petitioner made by their learned counsel Sri.Varghese C.Kuriakose was answered by the the learned Senior Government Pleader Smt.Mable C.Kurian saying that it is for respondents 2 and 3 to reply to the petitioners and that the State of Kerala and its functionaries had no role to play particularly because the proposal is one which is propounded by the Municipality. 3. Unfortunately the endorsements on file reveal that even though summons from this Court have been validly served on respondents 2 and 3 they have chosen not to be present in person or to be represented through counsel inferentially guiding me to the impression that they have nothing to offer in opposition to the various reliefs sought for in this writ petition. WP(C) NO. 6492 OF 2022 4. Resultantly I allow this writ petition and direct the competent among respondents 2 and 3 to immediately take up Exts.P7 and P8 and hear the petitioners thus culminating in an appropriate proceedings and action thereon particularly with respect to the allegation of the petitioners that their property has not been acquired but an embargo of alienation imposed against it as expeditiously as is possible but not later than two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment For the afore purpose I direct the petitioners to mark appearance before the third respondent Secretary of the Municipality along with the certified copy of this judgment at 11 a.m. on 25.03.2022 Sd DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN WP(C) NO. 6492 OF 2022 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6492 2022 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO. 522 2006 OF SRO MATTANNOOR DATED 14 03 2006 OBTAINED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO 524 2006 OF SRO MATTANNOOR DATED 14 03 2006 OBTAINED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11 03 2009 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25 06 2009 IN APPEAL NO 394 2009 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25 06 2009 IN APPEAL NO. 395 2009 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C) NO. 22775 2009 DATED 22 08 2012 PASSED BY THIS TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 02 02 2022 TO THE 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 02 02 2022 TO THE 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD SIGNED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN RELATION TO EXT P7 Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD SIGNED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN RELATION TO EXT P8