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.
Click here to read the Judgment
Judgment reviewed by – Amit Singh