The High Court of Kerala disposed of this writ petition directing the respondents to expeditiously implement the Government order dated 07/10/2009, which affirmed a previous order in a review application filed by the Corporation of Cochin.
Direction to respondents 1 and 2 to implement Ext.P4 order expeditiously, within eight weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
TUESDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1931
WP(C).No. 6268 of 2009(C)
-------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
---------------
1. T.S.BIJU,THAVEEDE HOUSE,HOUSE NO.21/1374 KIZHAKUMURI PARAMBU, PAZHNITHODUPALAM, PALLURUTHY, KOCHI-6.
2. B.ALI, HOUSE NO.5/1168,PETTIKARAN PARAMBU,KOSARAMUKKU, KOCHI-2.
3. A.LATHEEF,HOUSE NO.5/1153,PETTIKARAN PARAMBU,KOSARAMUKKU, KOCHI-2.
4. B.A.BABU, MATHES PARAMBU,HOUSE NO.5/2099 B.S.S.ROAD,KOCHI-2.
5. K.A.THAHAR,HOUSE NO.4/408,CHERALAYIKADA, PUTHENPARAMBU, KOCHI-2.
6. M.K.SURESH, MULLEZHATHU HOUSE, VALIYAPULLARA, HOUSE NO.19/545.PALLURUTHY, KOCHI-6.
7. T.V.SAKTHIKUMAR,THAREPARAMBIL HOUSE, V.377,PARAMBANATHUPARAMBU,MARANA ROAD, ELLIKKAPADY EROOR, TRIPUNITHURA,ERNAKULAM.
8. A.SALIM, HOUSE NO.3/24,NELLUKADAVU, FORT KOCHI-1.
9. K.N.THANKAPPAN,KANNAMANGALAM,VELUTHULLI, CHANDIROOR, CHERTHALA.
10. C.P.NELSON,HOUSE NO.7/136, CHILLAYIMADATHIL, CHAKKAMADOM,KOCHI-2.
11. K.UNNI, 7/163,KUTHIRAPARAMBU, CHAKKAMADOM, KOCHI-2.
WPC NO.6268/2009
12. C.SUNIL, HOUSE NO.XI/305,SOUTH THAMARAPARAMBU, MULLAVALAPPU,KOCHI-1.
13. M.O.MARKOSE,MANNEKKEZHATHU PARAMBU, HOUSE NO.14/481-A,CHULLIKKAL, KOCHI-5.
14. K.UMACHANDRAN, KAYYATHARA HOUSE, HOUSE NO.11/973,KADDE BHAGAM,PALLURUTHY, KOCHI-6.
15. C.K.VENUGOPAL, KAMBATHODATHU HOUSE, 14/1578, CHULLIKKAL, KOCHI-5.
BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU
SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN SRI.A.HAROON RASHEED SRI.T.S.SHYAM PRASANTH
RESPONDENT(S):
---------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,TRIVANDRUM.
2. CORPORATION OF COCHIN,BOAT JETTY, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY IS SECRETARY.
*ADDL.R3. C.A.JOSEPH AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.ANTHAPPAN, CHIRAKAPARAMBIL, KOCHI.
**(ADDITIONAL 3RD RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 27/10/2009 IN I.A.NO.12948/2009)*
ADV. SMT.T.B.MINI FOR ADDL.R3 MR.S.RAMESH BABU, SC FOR CORPORATION MR.P.NANDAKUMAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC NO.6268/2009
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
P1 : COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 20/08/2008 IN WP(C) NO.25251/2008 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
P2 : COPY OF GO(P) NO.4472/2008/LSGD DATED 31/12/2008 ISSUED BY R1.
P3 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE R2 ON 02/02/2009.
P4 : COPY OF ORDER DATED 07/10/2009 ISSUED BY R1.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS
R2(a) : COPY OF REVIEW PETITION DATED 19/01/2009.
R3(a) : COPY OF LIST PASSED BY THE COCHIN CORPORATION.
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE.
jg
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
WP(C) No.6268 of 2009
Dated, this the 10th day of November, 2009
This writ petition is filed seeking implementation of Ext.P2 order dated 31/12/2008 passed by the 1st respondent.
Now that by Ext.P4 order, the review sought by the Corporation is disposed of, this writ petition is also disposed of directing respondents 1 & 2 to implement Ext.P4. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within eight weeks of production of a copy of this judgment.
This writ petition is disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition for implementation of a government order should be disposed of after the review of that order is concluded.
T.S.BIJU AND OTHERS
STATE OF KERALA
CORPORATION OF COCHIN
C.A.JOSEPH
ANTONY DOMINIC
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
