Allowed

Sukumaran.P.K. v. State of Kerala and 2 Others

Kerala HC1 Dec 2011WP(C)/22420/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking direction to consider a petitioner's application for exemption under the Indian Medicine Central Council Act. The court held that an awaited amendment to the State Act cannot prevent consideration of an application based on a Central Act exemption order and directed the respondent to decide within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 3rd respondent to consider the petitioner's application issued in response to the Government Order of 10.11.2008 within six weeks.

Sukumaran.P.K. Vs State of Kerala and 2 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶3

THURSDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2011 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1933

¶4

PETITIONER(S):

¶5

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

¶6

SUKUMARAN.P.K,S/O. KUMARAN, PUZHAKKARAYEDATHU, MUTTINAKOM, VARAPPUZHA.P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶7

BY ADV. SRI.ASWIN GOPAKUMAR SRI.PRAVEEN.H. SRI.ANWIN GOPAKUMAR SMT.KALA G.NAMBIAR

¶8

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

¶9

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVRENMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

2. THE DIRECTOR, INDIAN SYSTEMS OF MEDICINE, AROGYA BHAVAN, P.B.NO. 182, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001

¶11

3. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, INDIAN SYSTEMS OF MEDICINE, L.S.G.G BUILDINGS, THAMMANAM.P.O, KOCHI-32, (LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT BUILDING).

¶12

SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WPC NO.22420/11

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶17

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DT 10.11.2008.

¶18

EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DT 28.12.2009.

¶19

EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DT 27.4.2009 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VARAPPUZHA.

¶20

EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DT 5.5.09 ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT, VARAPPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYATH.

¶21

EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 3.3.2010 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶22

EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 23.4.2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶23

EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 10.5.2010 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

¶28

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

¶29

W.P.(C) NO. 22420 OF 2011

¶30

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

¶31

Dated this the 1^st day of December, 2011

¶32

J U D G M E N T

¶33

Ext.P1 is an order issued by the Government of Kerala conveying its decision to give exemption to those who are eligible to claim protection under Section 17(3)(c) of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act and ordering that such persons shall approach the concerned District Medical Officers of Indian Systems of Medicine Department for appropriate orders. Seeking the benefit of Ext.P1, petitioner made Ext.P2 application to the 3^rd respondent. However, in view of Exts.P5 and P6, his application has not been considered. Therefore, this writ petition is filed seeking a direction for the consideration of his application. In Exts.P5 and P6 , the direction issued was to keep further action in abeyance on applications received in response to Ext.P1 on the ground that certain amendment to Kerala Ayurveda Health Centres (Issue of Licence and Control) Act, 2007 is awaited.

¶34

I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader.

¶35

WPC No.22420/11

¶36

:2 :

¶37

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since his application was made in pursuance to Ext.P1 and that Ext.P1 has been issued giving the benefit of Section 17(3)(c) of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, the amendment awaited to the Kerala Act referred to above can be no reason to await consideration of his application.

¶38

Learned Government Pleader also confirms that by Ext.P1, what is stated to be given is the benefit of the Central Act and the amendment mentioned in Exts.P5 and P6 are to the State Act. If this be the factual position, there is no reason why the amendment of the said Act should be awaited to consider the applications in response to Ext.P1.

¶39

Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3^rd respondent to consider Ext.P2 application made by the petitioner in the light of Ext.P1 order referred to above. Such orders shall be passed at any rate within 6 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶42

¶43

//True Copy//

¶44

PA to Judge

Sukumaran.P.K. v. State of Kerala and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukumaran.P.K. v. State of Kerala and 2 Others

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

M.I.Baby Vs K.Jayakumar

G.Seetha Vs District Supply Officer

Krishnan Nair Vs the Superintendent of Surveys

Institute of Smail Enterprises & Develop Vs National Council of Applied Economic Res

P.v.Riyas Vs District Collector Malappuram

M.a.Seena Ashraf Vs the Tahsildar, Kunnathunadu and Others