Disposed

A.C.Korath v. the Managing Director

Kerala HC6 Apr 2009WP(C)/6833/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner claims dissatisfaction over non-issue of taxi permit due to missing badge; nomination of nephew made by petitioner. Court observed respondents admitted receipt of nomination and willingness to consider claim. As grievance substantially redressed, court disposed of writ petition directing 1st respondent to consider claim and pass final orders within three months.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for issue of taxi permit to his nephew along with others similarly situated, and pass final orders

A.C.Korath Vs the Managing Director — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2009 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 6833 of 2009(Y) -------------------------

¶4

PETITIONER(S):

¶5

¶6

A.C. KORATH, S/O. CHERIATH, ALUKKA PUTHUSSERY HOUSE, JOSEPURAM, VAPPALASSERY P.O., ANGAMALY 683 572,

¶7

BY ADV. SRI.WILSON URMESE SRI.M.C.ANTONY

¶8

RESPONDENT(S):

¶9

¶10

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, COCHIN INTERNATIONA AIR PORT LTD., NEDUMBASSERY.

¶11

THE SECRETARY, COCHIN INTERNATIONAL, AIR PORT TAX, CO-OERATIVE SOCIETY, NEDUMBASSERY.

¶12

ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SC, KIAS LTD. FOR R1 SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, SC, COCHIN I AIRPORT LT FOR R1

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

¶15

W.P.(C.) No.6833 of 2009

¶16

Dated, this the 6^th day of April, 2009

¶17

J U D G M E N T

¶18

The petitioner is a land acquisition evictee. It is stated that the 1^st respondent had agreed to provide taxi permits to such of those eligible evictees or their nominees. According to the petitioner, he made an application, and eventually Ext.P3 list was prepared and he was included at Sl.No.24. But, it is stated that since he did not have a badge, he was not issued the taxi permit. Therefore, as permitted by the authorities, he nominated his nephew, one Mr.Thankachan. Ext.P4 is the nomination. Ext.P5 is the consent letter and Ext.P6 is the badge of his nephew. Despite long lapse of time the respondents have not taken a decision thereon, the writ petition has been filed.

¶19

In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, they have admitted of having received the nomination made by the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner's claim, will be considered along with other similar claimants.

¶20

Now that since the respondents have in their counter

¶21

WP(C) No.6833/2009

¶22

affidavit accepted their willingness to consider the case of the petitioner, substantially the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed.

¶23

Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1^st respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for issue of taxi permit to his nephew along with others, similarly situated. The claim shall be considered and final orders shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months of

¶24

production of a copy of this judgment.

¶25

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶26

(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)

¶27

A.C.Korath v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.C.Korath v. the Managing Director

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

K.Mohammedkutty Vs Radhakrishnan.C.

Chacko Vs State of Kerala & Others

Mohammed Kunju Vs Shahul Hameed

K.K.Kunjikrishnan Vs Government of India

Kadavayil Muslim Jama-Ath Vs the Kerala Wakf Board and Another

Mafeeda Vs the Union of India