Dismissed

Sheeja Vijayakumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Sept 2011WP(C)/14817/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Challenging an order of the 3rd respondent, the petitioner sought intervention due to pending appeal proceedings against an earlier order. The Court dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to exhaust statutory remedies under the Rationing Order. However, the Court directed the Secretary to Government, Food & Civil Supplies to consider an application (Ext. P13) regarding ration cards

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; direction issued to the First Respondent to consider Ext. P13 and pass appropriate orders within three months after hearing.

Sheeja Vijayakumar Vs State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2011 / 11TH JYAISHTA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 14817 of 2011(B)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

¶9

SHEEJA VIJAYAKUMAR, W/O VIJAYAKUMAR, SUKUMARI MANDIRAM, BALARAMAPURAM, ALSO HAVING RESIDENCE AT POOJALAKSHMI, ALUVILA, BALARAMAPURAM

¶10

BY ADV. MR. M.SREEKUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

¶13

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001

¶14

DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695005

¶15

DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001

¶16

TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, TALUK SUPPLY OFFICE, NEYYATTINKARA 695121

¶17

DEEPU M.R. PUTHRAVILA, KIZHAKKEKARA VEEDU, RUSSELPURAM, ATHIYANNUR, BALARAMAPURAM 695 501

¶18

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. P. NARAYANAN

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.

¶21

¶22

W.P (C) No. 14817 of 2011 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 1^st June , 2011

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The petitioner is challenging Ext. P12 order passed by the 3^rd respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court for the obvious reason that, the proceedings already taken by the petitioner by of way of appeal against Ext. P8 order passed by the very same respondent is pending consideration before the second respondent. In view of the order impugned in the writ petition, the rights and interests of the petitioner are likely to be affected, more so, when Ext.P9 appeal preferred against Exhibit P8 is posted for hearing. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has approached the Government in this regard by filing Ext. P1, which is also liable to be acted upon.

¶25

Heard the learned Government Pleader as well, who submits with reference to the materials on record that Ext. P9 appeal was preferred by the petitioner only on 17^th of May 2011, whereas the impugned order (Ext. P12) was passed just on the previous day (on 16.05.2011) and hence there is no lapses on the part of the concerned

¶26

W.P. (C) No. 14817 of 2011

¶27

: 2 :

¶28

respondent. The learned Government Pleader further submits that, if at all the petitioner is aggrieved in any manner by way of Ext. P12, there is an effective alternate remedy for the petitioner, as provided under the relevant provisions of the Rationing Order and that the statutory period for preference of such appeal is still to be over.

¶29

In the said circumstance, the Writ Petition is disposed relegating the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy as provided, if aggrieved of Ext. P12 in any manner.

¶30

However, taking note of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is interested in pursuing Ext. P13, there will be a direction to the first respondent to consider Ext. P13 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 'three months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶31

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

¶32

kmd

Sheeja Vijayakumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheeja Vijayakumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohan Sankar.v.N Vs Moosakutty, Tahsildar

Sankaran Ilayath & Anr. Vs J.Reji Kumar

Savithri Amma Vs Sri.Abdul Samad

K.T.Manikandan Vs Smt.Remadevi

Sibil Raj Vs the Sales Tax Officer, Iind Circle.Alpy.

Deepu.M.R. Vs Sheeja Vijayakumar & Ors.