Disposed

Koolath Mohammed v. the District Collector, Malappuram

Kerala HC6 Jun 2011WP(C)/8636/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court at Ernakulam disposed of the writ petition on the facts being specific. The court directed the additional second respondent, the Commissioner of Civil Supplies, to consider the petitioner's appeal under the Kerosene Control Order, 1968, and pass appropriate orders after hearing.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Commissioner of Civil Supplies to consider the appeal and pass appropriate orders after giving an opportunity of hearing within three months.

Koolath Mohammed Vs the District Collector… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

MONDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2011 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 8636 of 2011(D)

PETITIONER(S):

KOOLATH MOHAMMED, HOUSE OF ZAINA, NEAR RAMAKRISHNA MISSION ASRAMAM HIGH SCHOOL, KELLAI, KOZHIKODE - 673 003.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

¶13

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM - 676 505.

¶14

ADDL.R2

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (Impleaded as per order dated 6.6.11 in I.A.8157/11)

¶16

GP SRI.P.NARAYANAN

¶17

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

¶18

WP(C).No. 8636 of 2011

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

EXHIBITS

¶21

EXT.P1TRUE COPY OF A CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER SHOWING THE DETAILS OF THE LICENSES

¶22

EXT.P2TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER GOVT. DATED 17.2.86

¶23

EXT.P3TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT DATED 19.7.10 (WITHOUT EXHIBITS)

¶24

EXT.P4TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.2.11 OF THE RESPONDENT

¶25

(TRUE COPY)

¶26

P.A TO JUDGE

¶27

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J

¶28

W.P.(C).8636/2011

¶29

Dated this the 6^th day of June, 2011

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

Petitioner is before this Court virtually seeking to implement Ext.P2 order passed as early as in 1986 whereby he was given permission to have 13 depots dealing with kerosene. The petitioner however, conducted only two of them for different reasons and subsequently by filing Ext.P3 representation dated 19.7.2010, he sought permission to start the remaining depots as well. The said matter was settled by the respondent who passed Ext.P4 order declining the relief sought for referring to the sequence of events and that no such claim could be entertained in view of the changed circumstances, whereby several others had already been given licence to run the depots in the concerned locality and as such, there was no necessity to allow any new depots.

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioner, with reference to I.A.8157/2011 filed subsequently, submits that, being aggrieved of Ext.P4, the petitioner has approached the Commissioner of Civil Supplies by filing Ext.P5 appeal under Clause 18 of the Kerosene Control Order, 1968, and the petitioner would be

¶33

W.P.(C).8636/2011

¶34

¶35

satisfied if Ext.P5 appeal is caused to be considered and disposed of, in accordance with law. The petitioner has filed I.A.8157/2011 seeking to implead the Commissioner of Civil Supplies as additional second respondent.

¶36

3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

¶37

In the above circumstances, this Court does not find it necessary to go into the merits of the case. The writ petition is disposed of, directing the additional second respondent to consider Ext.P5 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and others concerned, if any. Proceedings shall be finalized, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 'three months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶38

Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with the copy of the writ petition and I.A.8157/2011 before the said respondent for further steps.

¶39

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, Judge

¶40

mrcs

Koolath Mohammed v. the District Collector, Malappuram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Koolath Mohammed v. the District Collector, Malappuram

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

Modular Concepts Electromechanical Llc Vs State of Kerala

Jijeesh Vs Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd.

A.Prabhakaran Vs the District Collector

The Principal,Mother India International Vs Union Bank of India and Others

C.Ravindran Vs Chief Manager,Sbt

Syamaprasad T.V (Minor) Vs Secretary, Department of Higher Educatio