Dismissed

John Benson J. v. State and Others

Kerala HC1 Feb 2010WP(C)/3134/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Second Respondent to consider and decide the petitioner's pending representations regarding High Tension electricity safety norms within two months of receiving this judgment, without adjudicating the merits of the grievance itself.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's representations within two months.

John Benson J. Vs State and Others — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2010 / 12TH MAGHA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 3134 of 2010(N)

PETITIONER(S):

JOHN BENSON J.,SENIOR ELECTRICIAN, GOVERNMENT CENTRAL PRESS,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA SRI.T.K.BIJU

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

¶13

STATE OF KERALA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPT.OF HIGHER EDUCATION GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

THE DIRECTOR OF PRINTING, GOVERNMENT CENTRAL PRESS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

THE CHIEF ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, ELECTRICAL INSPECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

¶19

W.P.(C). NO.3134 OF 2010

¶20

Dated this the 1^st day of February, 2010

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The petitioner is a Senior Electrician Grade-II in the Government Central Press, Thiruvananthapuram. Exts.P1 and P2 circulars are issued by the third respondent prescribing qualification and experience of authorised persons for the operation and maintenance of High Tension and Extra High Tension installations. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the issuance of Exts.P1 and P2 circulars, no steps were taken by the respondents for implementing the same. To redress the grievance, the petitioner has filed repeated representations as is obvious from Ext.P4 to P6 and P8 representations. According to him, despite the said repeated representations,

¶23

no action was taken to implement the direction issued by the third respondent in Exts.P1 and P2 circulars.

¶24

The said representations are pending before the second respondent. Admittedly, the second respondent is competent to look into the grievance raised as per the said representations. In the circumstances,

¶25

W.P.(C) NO.3134 of 2010

¶26

¶27

there shall be a direction to the second respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4, P5, P6 and P8 representations expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy o this judgment.

¶28

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

¶29

(C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)

¶30

spc

¶31

W.P.(C) NO.3134 of 2010

¶32

¶33

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

¶34

CRL. M.C. NO.

¶35

O R D E R

¶36

3^rd June, 2009

John Benson J. v. State and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

John Benson J. v. State and Others

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 State of Kerala

P.a.Abdul Kareem Vs State of Kerala and Ors.

Remesan M.K. Vs State of Kerala & Others

Jagadish K.N. Vs Hmt Ltd.

J.Daniel Kutty Vs Accountant General

Dr.N.C.Rajan Vs the Director of Treasuries and Others