Disposed

Anas C.M. v. the District Collector,Ernakulam

Kerala HC9 Apr 2008WP(C)/8785/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ directing the implementation of a Collector's decision (Ext.P5) revising a Panchayat order (Ext.P2). The Court, satisfied that Ext.P5 was operative, disposed of the petition by directing the Panchayat to implement Ext.P5 until revised.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of by directing the respondent Panchayat to implement Ext.P5 until it is revised.

Anas C.M. Vs the District Collector,Erna… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2008 / 20TH CHAITHRA 1930

¶5

WP(C).No. 8785 of 2008(U) -------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

--------------ANAS C.M., S/O.MOHAMED CHERUVALLYKUDY HOUSE, EDAVOORKARA KOOVAPPADY VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK ERNAKULAM (DIST)

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.ANIL K.MOHAMMED

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

-----------------

¶11

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

2. OKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OKKAL, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶13

ADDL.RESPONDENTS

¶14

3. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT SAND WORKERS UNION,(AITUC) OKKAL PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE, OKKAL P.O, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶15

4. OKKAL MEKHALA MANAL THOZHILALI UNION, (INTUC), OKKAL PO, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶16

5. ERNAKULAM JILLA MANAL THOZHILALI UNION (CITU), OKKAL PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE, OKKAL PO, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶17

6. ERNAKULAM JILLA NIRMANA THOZHILALI SANGH (BMS), PERUMBAVOOR MEKHALA COMMITTEE, PERUMBAVOOR P.O, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶18

(RESPONDENTS 3 TO 6 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN IA NO.3911/08 DT.24/03/2008)

¶19

BY ADV. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR ADDL.R3 TO R6 SRI.MANU GOVIND SRI.NIREESH MATHEW SC FOR R2 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

¶22

===============

¶23

W.P.(C) NO. 8785 OF 2008 U

¶24

====================

¶25

Dated this the 9^th day of April, 2008

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

The prayer in this writ petition is for directing the implementation of Ext.P5, which reflects the decision taken by the 1^st respondent District Collector to revise Ext.P2. According to the petitioner, despite having issued Ext.P5, the respondent Panchayat is not implementing the same, but is still following Ext.P2.

¶28

From the submissions made before this court, it was found that the Panchayat was also under the impression that Ext.P2 was revived by the District Collector. However, instructions have been taken by the learned Government Pleader from the 1^st respondent and it is submitted that though there is a proposal to reexamine the matter, as at present, Ext.P5 still holds the field and that the same shall be implemented.

¶29

In view of this, directing that Ext.P5 will be implemented until

¶30

it is revised, this writ petition is disposed of. Needless to say that the authorities shall expedite the proposal for revising the decision in Ext.P5.

¶31

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶32

ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE.

¶33

Anas C.M. v. the District Collector,Ernakulam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anas C.M. v. the District Collector,Ernakulam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sakkir Hussain Vs M.K.Joseph

Sarasamma Vs T.P.Senkumar

J.Subhadra Vs T.P.Senkumar, I.P.S.

John Vs Rajappan

Jacquline Cleetus Vs State of Kerala

Manoj Vs District Collector, Kollam