Disposed

Jose Thomas M. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Oct 2011WP(C)/15710/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition filed in 2006, which had not been admitted earlier. Instead of a fact-finding exercise, the Court directed the second respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on a pending representation and finalise proceedings within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direct the second respondent to consider the pending representation and pass appropriate orders within three months.

Jose Thomas M. Vs State of Kerala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 4TH OCTOBER 2011 / 12TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 15710 of 2006(T) -------------------------PETITIONER(S): --------------JOSE THOMAS.M. GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR, JOSE BUNGLOW, PIDAVOOR PO, PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM.

¶5

BY ADV. SRI.K.BABU THOMAS

¶6

RESPONDENT(S): --------------1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶7

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM.

¶8

3. THE TAHSILDAR, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, PUNALUR P.O. KOLLAM.

¶9

4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PATTAZHI VILLAGE, PATTAZHI P.O. PATHANAPURAM,KOLLAM.

¶10

5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PATTAZHI VADAKKEKKARA VILLAGE, KADUVATHODU P.O. PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM.

¶11

6. PATTAZHI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PATTAZHI P.O. PATHANAPURAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 7. PATTAZHI VADAKKEKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH KADUVATHODU P.O. PATHANAPURAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶12

8. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PWD, ROADS AND BRIDGES, SOUTH CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

9. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD, ROADS AND BRIDGES DIVISION, KOLLAM.

¶14

GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.J.RAJASHREE FOR R3,8 &9

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

W.P.C.NO.15710/2006

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶20

P1: COPY OF AGREEMENT NO.59/SESC/2005-2006 DATED 18/6/2005.

¶21

P2: COPY OF NOTICE OF AUCTION SALE DATED 3/6/2006.

¶22

P3: COPY OF REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 5/6/2006.

¶23

P4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 14/6/2006.

¶24

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J

¶29

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

¶30

WP(C) NO. 15710 OF 2006

¶31

Dated this the 4^th day of October, 2011.

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

The petitioner has approached this Court with the

¶34

following prayers:

¶35

(i) To issue a writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, or order, or direction to the respondents calling for the records of the case leading up to Ext.P4 and quash Ext.P2.

¶36

(ii) To issue a writ of prohibition, or any other appropriate writ, or direction to the respondents 2 to 7 interdicting them from in any way interfering with the construction of bridge across Kallada River at Pathanapuram connecting Kunnikode under Ext.P1 and restrain them from entering the site of work, till the works are completed.

¶37

(iii) To declare that the petitioner is entitled to use the spoil obtained on excavation of foundation for the piers and abutments under Ext.P1 heaped and stocked by him on either bank of the River for back filling of excavated portions and filling in the low lying areas and for use at site and that the respondents 2 to 7 have no authority to interfere with the works, or to classify the spoil obtained on excavation, or to deal with the same, and that Ext.P2 and the auction sale are illegal and unauthorized.

¶38

and

¶39

(iv) To grant such other reliefs this Hon. Court may deem, proper, just, equitable and necessary in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case including the costs incurred by the petitioner in these proceedings.

¶40

2. Despite the fact that the Writ Petition was filed in

¶41

the year 2006, the matter is moved for 'admission' after quite

¶42

¶43

WP(C) No. 15710/2006

¶44

a long time. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that direction might be given to the second respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4 representation which is stated as still pending.

¶45

Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. This Court does not find it fit to pursue a fact finding exercise at this stage. Considering the limited relief now pressed before this Court, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the second respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4, in accordance with law, if the same is still pending. Proceedings shall be finalised as above, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 'three months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶46

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE

¶47

dnc

Jose Thomas M. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jose Thomas M. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kerala State Electricity Board and Anoth Vs Sajan P.K.

Hashir Abdulla Vs University of Calicut and Others

C.Rafeek Vs the Port Conservator

M/S.K.Ravindran Vs State of Kerala

Muralidharan Vs the National Highway Authority of India

Dr.P.Kuriakose Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer