High CourtsDivision Bench(2018) 01 KL CK 0024

YESHWANTH SHENOY vs THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 10 January 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
Antony Dominic, Dama Seshadri Naidu
CASE NUMBER
891 of 2018

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

12 paragraphs · 285 words
1.

This writ petition is filed in public interest by a party in person seeking a direction to the Airport Authority to take action against construction of

offending buildings under the Air Craft Act, 1934 and the Air Craft (Demolition of Obstruction caused by Buildings and Trees etc.) Rules, 1994.

2.

During the course of hearing, we asked the petitioner whether he had impleaded the persons who have constructed the offending buildings, his

answer was despite the queries made under the Right to Information Act, the details were not furnished and therefore, they were not available with

him. However, on behalf of the Airport Authority of India, it was pointed out that the names and the details of five buildings were available in

Ext.P2 report produced along with the writ petition and that therefore, the submission of absence of details with the petitioner was incorrect. When

we asked the petitioner whether he intends to bring on record atleast those five persons as parties to this writ petition, his answer was that if the

Court wants, he is willing to do so. According to us, in a writ petition where directions are sought for demolition of buildings which are allegedly

constructed in violation of the provisions contained in the Air Craft Act and the Rules mentioned above, it was the bounden duty of the petitioner to

have impleaded the persons who have constructed the offending buildings. In so far as this case is concerned, there is non-joinder of such

necessary parties before this Court and the petitioner himself was unwilling to implead them. In such circumstances, we are not persuaded to

entertain the writ petition. The writ petition is therefore dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties.