Disposed

B.Suriakumar v. the General Manager and Others

Kerala HC25 Mar 2010WP(C)/7621/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged non-consideration of representation regarding delay in electric connection for his industrial shed. Court directed the first respondent to consider the representation after hearing concerned parties within six weeks. Status quo maintained regarding possession of the allotted shed.

What did the court decide?

Respondent-1 directed to consider Ext.P12 representation after hearing within six weeks. Status quo maintained regarding possession of industrial shed.

B.Suriakumar Vs the General Manager and Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2010 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 7621 of 2010(C)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

¶9

B.SURIAKUMAR, RESIDING AT JANAKI NIVAS, MUDAPPALLUR P.O, (VIA) VADAKKANCHERRY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 705.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H.

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

¶13

GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, PALAKKAD.

¶14

THE PALAKKAD DISTRICT MINI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.S(IND) P. (MIE) 50, CIVIL STATION, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, PALAKKAD REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, VADAKKANCHERRY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶16

P.V.KRISHNAKUMAR, PARUVAYIL HOUSE, CHITTADI (VIA) VANDAZHY, ALATHUR TALUK.

¶17

JAYANTHY.R, W/O.REGHUVARAN, SREE KRISHNAPRABHA, KUNNUMPARAMBU, MUDAPPALLUR, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶18

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. BIJOY CHANDRAN. R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶21

W.P.(C) No. 7621 OF 2010

¶22

......................................................................... Dated this the 25^th March, 2010

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

The petitioner is aggrieved of non-consideration of Ext.P12 representation, expressing his grievances about the delay in getting the electric connection allotted to the industrial shed, which is stated as pending consideration before the first respondent.

¶25

Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Board.

¶26

Considering the limited nature of the prayer sought for and proposed to be given, this Court does not find it necessary to issue notice to all respondents. In the above circumstances, the first respondent is directed to consider Ext.P12 representation, in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

¶27

W.P.(C) No. 7621 OF 2010

¶28

¶29

Status quo shall be maintained with regard to the possession of

¶30

the industrial shed allotted to the petitioner till such time.

¶31

The Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶32

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶33

B.Suriakumar v. the General Manager and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Suriakumar v. the General Manager 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

Uco Bank, Thrissur Vs a.v.Moidunni

The Kadannamanna Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Vs the Income Tax Officer and Others

Regency Club Vs R.D.O., Thrissur

Cannanore Roller Flour Mills Pvt.Ltd. Vs the Kerala Financial Corporation & Ors.

Mohamedkunhi Vs the Canara Bank

Shabeer Ali Vs the Manager,State Bank of India