Allowed

Mr.Arun A.C v. Kerala Institute for Local Admn.

Kerala HC8 Jul 2010WP(C)/17813/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged appointments made by the Kerala Institute for Local Administration, seeking a directive to adhere to specific bye-laws. The court treated the respondents' counter-argument regarding established procedure as redressing the grievance, dismissing the petition against the impugned appointments without independent detailed adjudication. No specific statutory provisions wer

What did the court decide?

Petition closed based on respondent's counter-affidavit confirming adherence to established appointment procedure; no specific relief against named parties needed.

Mr.Arun A.C Vs Kerala Institute for Local Admn. — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2010 / 17TH ASHADHA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 17813 of 2009(V)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

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

¶9

1. MR. ARUN A.C., S/O.CHANDRABOSE, AMBAZHAPPULLY HOUSE, PO, MULAMKUNNATHUKAVU, GRAMALA,

¶10

THRISSUR- 680 581.

¶11

2. MR.SUMESH K.V.S/O.VELAYUDHAN, KARUMATH VALAPPIL VEEDU, PO, PORKKULAM, PAZHANJI (VIA), THRISSUR DIST.

¶12

3. MR.SANTHOSH KUMAR P.B, S/O.BALACHANDRAN, THEKE MEPPULLY VEDU, KALLEPPIDY ROAD, PO.MULAMKUNNATHUKAVE, THRISSUR - 680 581.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶14

SRI.K.M.ANEESH

¶15

RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

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

¶17

1. KERALA INSTITUTE FOR LOCAL ADMINISTRATIO N, MULANGUNNATHUKAVU, THRISSUR, PIN-680 581, REP.BY ITS DIRECTOR.

¶18

2. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY FOR LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶19

*ADDL. R3 TO R8 IMPLEADED.

¶20

3. SANTHOSH K.S., DAILY WAGE WORKER, KERALA INSTITUTE FOR LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, MULANGUNNATHUKAVU, THRISSUR PIN 680 581.

¶21

4. NAJLA K.M., DAILY WAGE WORKER,

¶22

KERALA INSTITUTE FOR LOCAL ADMINISTRATION

¶23

MULANGUNNATHUKAVU, THRISSUR PIN 680 581.

¶24

W.P.(C) NO.17813/2009

¶25

5. GIRISH K., DAILY WAGE WORKER, DO. DO.

¶26

6. ABDUL RASHEED, DAILY WAGE WORKER

¶27

DO. DO.

¶28

7. A.K.BALAKRISHNAN, DAILY WAGE WORKER, DO. DO.

¶29

8. K.VINOD, DAILY WAGE WORKER, DO. DO.

¶30

*ADDL. 3 TO R8 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT. 15.7.2009 IN IA. 8510/2009.

¶31

R1 BY ADVS. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED, SRI.M.SAJJAD. R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH R3 & R8 BY SRI. KALEESWARAM RAJ

¶32

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶33

W.P.(C) NO.17813/2009

¶34

APPENDIX

¶35

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶36

P1:- COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION AND RULES.

¶37

P2:- COPY OF THE BYE LAWS KERALA INSTITUTE OF LOCAL ADMINISTRATION , THRISSUR.

¶38

P3:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.G.O.(RT) NO.402/2007/LSGD DTD. 7.2.2007 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶39

P4:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION OF THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT DT. 1.4.09.

¶40

P5:- COPY OF THE REPLY OF THE 2ND PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT DTD. 15.5.09.

¶41

P6:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 28.5.09 FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.

¶42

P7:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 2.6.2009 FILED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

TRUE COPY

P.A. TO JUDGE

tss

ANTONY DOMINIC, J

W.P.(C).17813/09

Dated this the 8^th day of July, 2010

¶49

JUDGMENT

¶50

The 1^st prayer in the writ petition reads as under:-

¶51

To issue a writ of mandamus or such other appropriate writ, direction or oder and to direct the respondent to strictly follow Ext.P2 bye-law and Ext.P3 order while making appointments in 1^st respondent

¶52

In paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit filed by the 1^st respondent, it is stated thus,

¶53

“Hence no action contrary to set procedure will be allowed or attempted. The appointments are made by virtue of powers vested as per clauses 3, 4 and 5 of Para 9 and clause (xix) of Para 40 of the Rules and clause (k) bye-law Nos.3, 4 and 5 of service byelaws.”

¶54

W.P.(C).17813/09

¶55

¶56

In view of this, the grievance covered by 1^st prayer shall

¶57

stand redressed.

¶58

As far as the party respondents are concerned, petitioners

¶59

are not seeking any relief against them. Therefore recording the submission in paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit, writ petition is closed.

¶60

ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge

¶61

mrcs

Mr.Arun A.C v. Kerala Institute for Local Admn.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.Arun A.C v. Kerala Institute for Local Admn.

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

P.Prasad Vs Kerala Water Authority

Smt.Annie Mathew Vs the Chief Manager(Tlc)

Dr. K.J.Sharlet (Died) Vs the State of Kerala and Another

Balasubramania Kurup Vs the Sub Registrar and Others

Ajitha Shaji Vs Union of India

Salim Vs Sate of Kerala