Disposed

Prof.P.M.Thomas v. Dist.Collector, Pathanamthitta

Kerala HC8 Dec 2011WP(C)/10647/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that the statutory requirement to file a representation before approaching the High Court was satisfied by the petitioners' file-noting action. The prayer became infructuous/post-mature as writ proceedings typically require a clean record of civil procedure.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of on the ground that the prayer has become infructuous due to the satisfaction of the statutory condition precedent.

Prof.P.M.Thomas Vs Dist.Collector… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 8TH DECEMBER 2011 / 17TH AGRAHAYANA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 10647 of 2005(P)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

PROF.P.M.THOMAS, S/O.P.M.MAMMAN, PULINTHITTA HOUSE, R.S.P.O., THIRUVALLA-689 111.

¶8

PROF. C.T.TITUS, S/O.C.M.TITUS, CHERIYAKALATHIL, R.S P.O., THIRUVALLA.

¶9

K.C.JACOB, S/O.V.N.CHACKO, VAZHAYIL HOUSE, R.S P.O., THIRUVALLA.

¶10

T.P.UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR, S/O.V.RAGHAVAN NAIR, RAJA VILAS, MUTHOOR P.O., THIRUVALLA.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶14

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVALLA.

¶15

THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶16

THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, THIRUVALLA.

¶17

THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUVALLA.

¶18

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION, THIRUVALLA.

¶19

SRI. VIJULAL, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

W.P.(C) NO. 10647/2005

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶24

EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.10.2004 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶25

EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM DATED 11.02.2005 PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY.

¶26

EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH EVIDENCING INSTALLATION OF ONE OF THE SIGNBOARDS.

¶27

EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.02.2005 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS INCLUDING THE ANNEXURE.

¶28

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

B.P. RAY, J.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 10647 of 2005

¶33

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

¶34

Dated this the 8^th day of December, 2011.

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

The prayer in the writ petition seems to have become infructuous. If the petitioners still have any grievance, they may approach respondent No.1 by filing a representation highlighting their grievances. If such a representation is filed within one month from today, respondent No.1 shall pass appropriate orders within three months from the date of receipt of the representation after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶37

This writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶38

sd/- B.P. RAY, JUDGE.

¶39

¶40

W.P.(C) No. 7732/2005

¶41

-:2:-

¶42

B.P. RAY, J.

¶43

O.P.No. 13887 of 2002

¶44

Dated this the 16^th day of November, 2011.

¶45

W.P.(C) No. 7732/2005

¶46

-:3:-

¶47

JUDGMENT

Prof.P.M.Thomas v. Dist.Collector, Pathanamthitta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prof.P.M.Thomas v. Dist.Collector, Pathanamthitta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Teresa.v.R. Vs the Ernakulam Dist. Co.Bank

Ernakulam District Co-Op. Bank Vs State of Kerala

Geetha Prasad Vs State of Kerala

Chaliyam-Beypore Matsyathozhilali Vs District Collector, Kozhikode

K.K.Rajeevan Vs v.K.Prasannan & Another

A.Muhammed Ashraf Vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Kannur