Disposed

Sheena Ashraf v. the State of Kerala and 2 Others

Kerala HC9 Jun 2011WP(C)/4317/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition challenging the ouster of a general category applicant from licensee allotment after the respondents issued a further notification restricting the selection to SC/ST members. The court recorded submissions, disposed of the matter without expressing an opinion on the merits, and granted liberty to approach the court if fresh steps are not taken.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed giving liberty to approach this court if further cause of action arises on fresh notification.

Sheena Ashraf Vs the State of Kerala and 2 Others — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2011 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 4317 of 2011(L) -------------------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

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

¶8

SHEENA ASHRAF,AGED 35 YEARS, W/O.ASHRAF,KOCHUMADATHIL HOUSE, ERUMELY P.O, ERUMELY,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.BABU CHERUKARA, SRI.ANZAR BASHEER, SRI.PRATHEUSH.M.ANAND, SRI.P.ANTO THOMAS.

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

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

¶12

1. THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOOD & CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN -695 001.

¶13

2. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, KOTTAYAM,PIN- 686 002.

¶14

3. THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, KANJIRAPPALLY,PIN- 686 507.

¶15

R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

W.P.(C). NO.4317/2011-L:

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶20

EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. C.S.8:2064/08 DTD. 04/06/2008 ISSUED BY THE R.2.

¶21

EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ENTIRE SET OF APPLICATION DTD. 09/07/2008 BY THE PETITIONER.

¶22

EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 08/09/2009 BY THE R.2.

¶23

EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.27617/2010 DTD. 03/12/2010 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶24

EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.23377/2010(S) DTD. 04/01/2011 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶25

EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 24/01/2011 NO.C.S. 8-2064/08 BY THE R.2.

¶26

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

Prv.

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J

¶31

....................................................... W.P.(C).4317/2011

¶32

Dated this the 9^th day of June, 2011

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

Petitioner applied for allotment of A.R.D.No.49 as a licensee, pursuant to Ext.P1 notification dated 4.6.2008 issued by the second respondent. Petitioner is a member belonging to the general category. Though the petitioner was stated as shortlisted among the 6^th candidates out of 18 applicants, no further steps were taken to finalize the selection. It was in the meanwhile, that Ext.P6 notification was issued, allegedly without cancelling the earlier notification (Ext.P1), whereby the petitioner has been ousted from the field, for the reason that as per Ext.P6 notification, the zone of consideration is restricted only to the members of SC/ST category, which made the petitioner to approach this Court seeking for appropriate reliefs.

¶35

The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that there is absolutely no arbitrariness or mala fides in issuing Ext.P6 and that the rearrangement from the general category to the reserved category was necessitated because of the judgment dated 4.1.2011 in W.P.(C).23377/2010 (Ext.P5). The learned Government Pleader also submits that no

¶36

W.P.(C).4317/11

¶37

¶38

further application has been received after the issuance of Ext.P6 notification and that fresh notification is intended to be issued, which was kept in abeyance in view of the general election to the Legislative Assembly.

¶39

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, by virtue of Ext.P5 judgment, proceedings have to be finalized within one month as ordered by the Division Bench therein. The Government Pleader explains the situation stating that by virtue of the election notification issued in the meanwhile, no fresh selection procedure could be pursued and that appropriate steps would be pursued within the shortest possible time.

¶40

Submission as above is recorded and the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court, if at all any further cause of action arises, as and when the notification is issued. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits regarding the sustainability of the notification.

¶41

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, Judge

¶42

mrcs

Sheena Ashraf v. the State of Kerala and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheena Ashraf v. the 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pattathari Kuttiraman Vs the Taluk Surveyor

Baby Joseph Vs Union of India

Sreelesh Kumar Vs Kerala Water Authority

Savithri Amma Vs Sri.Abdul Samad

Dena Bank Vs Kerala State Housing Board and Another

Manomohan Vs the Dist.Collector, Kottayam