Petitioner sought direction to implement Ext.P3. Court noted pendency of a revision petition before the Tribunal for Local Self Government with an interim stay. Court declined to entertain writ prayers and closed the petition.
Writ petition closed. No costs.
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 T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
FRIDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2010 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1932
WP(C).No. 11626 of 2010(C)
PETITIONER(S):
NAZEEMA, W/O.LATE SALAHUDEEN, VELIAYYATHU HOUSE, MUKKAVALA PERINGALA MURI, KAYAMKULAM.
BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR
SRI.K.JAGADEESH
RESPONDENT(S):
ADV. SRI.RAYA SHENOI,SC,KAYAMKULAM MUNICIPAL FOR R1-2 SRI.M.V.THAMBAN FOR R3 SRI.R.REJI FOR R3 SMT.THARA THAMBAN FOR R3 SRI.V.K.SATHYANATHAN FOR R3
SRI.B.BIPIN FOR R3
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No. 11626 of 2010-C
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 21st day of May, 2010.
JUDGMENT
The main prayer in this writ petition is for a direction to the second respondent to implement Ext.P3 immediately. When the matter came up for hearing on 9.4.2010, it was pointed out that the appeal mentioned in Ext.P4 judgment, has already been disposed of. Learned counsel for the third respondent then submitted that the appeal was disposed of without hearing him. This Court, therefore, directed the Municipality to file an affidavit in the matter, pursuant to which the Municipality has filed an affidavit.
wpc 11626/2010
2
Institutions which is pending. In I.A. No.505/2010, an interim order of stay has already been passed by the Tribunal. In the light of the above, the matter has to be considered by the Tribunal and therefore, the prayers in the writ petition at this stage, need not be gone into.
Therefore, the writ petition is closed. No costs.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
kav/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition concerning implementation of an order requires adjudication by the Tribunal for Local Self Government.
Whether the prayers in the writ petition can be entertained given the pendency of a revision petition and interim stay by the Tribunal.
Nazeema
The Kayamkulam Municipality
Abdullakutty
T.R. Ramachandran Nair
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
