Partly allowed

Arun Mathew Thomas v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Mar 2010WP(C)/4042/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought a stay on the execution of sentence and a direction to the Government to consider remission/commutation applications within a specific timeframe. The court referred to a Division Bench decision on this issue.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Government to consider the pending applications for remission/commutation and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law; granted stay on suspension of sentence.

Arun Mathew Thomas Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2010 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1931

¶4

WP(C).No. 4042 of 2010(Q)

¶5

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

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

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

¶8

ARUN MATHEW THOMAS, S/O.THOMAS, PALMCOT, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS. MR.RENJITH B.MARAR,

¶10

MR.RAJESH NARAYAN IYER, SMT.LAKSHMI N.KAIMAL, SMT.PRIYA P.A.

¶11

RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------------

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI.

¶14

3. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

4. MAJO V.KURIAKOSE, VICHATTU VEEDU, POORAPPUZHA, THODUPUZHA.

¶16

R1 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. S.U. NAZAR

¶17

R2 BY ADV. MR.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDIA

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

Kss

¶20

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J.

¶21

===========================

¶22

W.P.(C)No.4042 OF 2010

¶23

===========================

¶24

Dated this the 12^th day of March,2010

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

This petition is filed under Article 226 of

¶27

the Constitution of India for a writ of

¶28

mandamus commanding respondents 2 and 3 to consider Exts.P7 and P8 applications within a time frame and to suspend the sentence till

¶29

Exts.P7 and P8 are disposed of.

¶30

Learned counsel appearing for the

¶31

petitioner and learned Government pleader were heard.

¶32

The question is squarely covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this court in Moideenkoya v. Secretary to Government (2008(4) KLT 257). The Division Bench held that it is for the Government to decide whether the power under section 432/433 of Code of Criminal Procedure is to be invoked and this court

¶33

W.P.(C)4042/2010 2

¶34

cannot direct the Government to exercise the power in one way or the other. It is also held that court may grant an order of stay of the suspension of sentence till a decision is taken on a representation pending before the Government.

¶35

Petition is therefore disposed of directing the Government to consider Exts.P7 and P8 applications and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶36

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶37

tpl/-

¶38

M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶39

W.P.(C).NO. /06

¶40

--------------------JUDGMENT

¶41

SEPTEMBER,2006

Arun Mathew Thomas v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Mathew Thomas v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aneesh and Another Vs State of Kerala and Others

Janardhanan Vs S.I.of Police

Nizan.P.T.and Others Vs State of Kerala & Others

Jaffer Vs the State of Kerala

Sinto and Another Vs State of Kerala

Savadkutty Vs Zeenath