Writ petitioner challenging a notice directed competent authority before whom his appeal was pending to consider and dispose of it expeditiously.
Directing the competent authority to consider and dispose of the pending appeal expeditiously.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/21ST MAGHA 1933
WP(C).No. 1255 of 2012 (F)
PETITIONER:
T.SHAHINSHA S/O.P.K.THAHAKUNJU, AGED 49 YEARS RESIDING AT S.S.MANZIL, CHERAVALLY, KAYAMKULAM PIN-690502.
BY ADVS. SRI.P.A.ABDUL JABBAR SRI.ABDUL LATHIEF H
RESPONDENTS:
1. KAYAMKUAM MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA PIN-690502. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE SECRETARY, KAYAMKULAM MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-690502.
BY SRI.RAYA SHENOI,SC FOR KAYAMKULAM MUNICIPALITY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-022012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MJL
WPCNO:1255/2012
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
ANNEXURE R1: TRUE XEROX COPY OF APPEAL DATED 18.1.2012 FILED ON 21.1.2012 BEFORE THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, KAYAMKULAM BY THE PETITIONER.
/TRUE COPY/
P A TO JUDGE
MJL
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
W.P.C.No.1255 of 2012
Dated this the 10th day of February, 2012
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court with the following
prayers:
“a) Issue a Writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext.P6 and quash the same declaring it as illegal.
b) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the respondents to either permit the petitioner to do the work alloted to him as per Ext.P1 by re-fixing the rate according to the schedule for the period 2011-2012 or to withdraw him from the work by receiving the amount of Rs.65,250/- deposited with the respondents.”
2.When the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Municipality submits that the petitioner has already availed the statutory remedy by way of appeal before the Municipal Council. A copy of the appeal has been produced as Annexure R1.
In the above circumstance, this Court finds that no fact adjudication is necessary in this case and the writ petition is disposed of, directing the competent authority before whom the Annexure R1 is pending, to have the same, considered and disposed of, in accordance with law. Appropriate orders shall
W.P.C.No.1255 of 2012
2
be passed, after hearing the parties concerned, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE
su
1 issue framed by the court
Whether statutory remedy by way of appeal bars this writ petition or necessitates fact adjudication.
T.Shashinsha S/o P.K.Thahakunju
Kayamkulam Municipality
The Secretary, Kayamkulam Municipality
P.R.Ramachandran Menon
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
