Disposed

K.Kunhiraman v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC2 Feb 2012WP(C)/248/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that since the petitioner was not heard before a revisional order, they should approach the issuing authority with a show-cause notice. The petitioner appointed as Chairman shall continue officiating, and the Commissioner must hear parties within two months. The writ was disposed of without deciding on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to move authority to show cause; Tribunal Member to continue officiating; Commissioner to hear parties within two months.

K.Kunhiraman Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2012/14TH POUSHA 1933

¶4

WPC.No. 248 of 2012 (E) ====================

¶5

PETITIONER: ===========

¶6

K.KUNHIRAMAN, NON-HEREDITARY TRUSTEE, SREE KOTTIYOOR DEVASWOM, KOTTIYOOR.P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶7

BY ADV.SMT.PRABHA R.MENON.

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

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

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (DEVASWOMS), SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPUARM.

¶11

2 THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

3 MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOUSEFED COMPLEX, ERAHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE-673 006.

¶13

4 THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, HOUSEFED COMPLEX, ERAHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE-673 006.

¶14

W.P.(C).NO.248/2012-E:

¶15

5 SREE KOTTIYOOR DEVASWOM, KOTTIYOOR.P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER.

¶16

6 JAMUNA (ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR), CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, SREE KOTTIYOOR DEVASWOM, KOTTIYOOR.P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶17

7 T.BALAN NAIR, RESIDING AT KOTTIYOOR, KOTTIYOOR.P.O. KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶18

R3 & R4 BY ADV. SRI.N.MANOJ KUMAR,S C.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-01-2012,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

W.P.(C).NO.248/2012-E:

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶23

EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN MFA.NO.74/1988 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE DECISION DTD. 21/12/2011.

¶24

EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 17/08/1994.

¶25

EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE DECISION DTD. 27/12/2011. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 07/042006 IN W.P.(C).NO.7801/2006. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF R.P.NO.18/2011. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE I.A. NO. 30/2011 IN R.P.NO.18/2011.

¶26

EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE NOTICE OF MEETING DTD. 29/12/2012.

¶27

EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 29/12/2012 BY THE R.2.

¶28

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

Prv.

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN &

¶33

C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ.

¶34

----------------------------------W.P(C).No.248 OF 2012

¶35

Dated this the 4^th day of January, 2012

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,J.

¶38

This writ petition is filed against an interim order passed by the Government during the course of a revision. The fundamental contention is that writ petitioner and others, who are entitled to be heard, were not heard before issuing that order. Under such circumstances, all that is required is for the petitioner to move the authority which issued the impugned Ext.P9 and show cause why that order may have to be varied. Hence it is ordered that if such request is made, the competent authority in the Government will take up the same and decide on that at the earliest, particularly when it is pointed out that it is the Tahsildar who has been appointed as the chairman for the next three years by the MDB.

¶39

¶40

WPC.248/12

¶41

As of now, the Tahsildar who has been appointed as the Chairman for the next three years by the MDB shall continue to officiate, to run the day-to-day business, other than any election.

¶42

It is further directed that the Commissioner, MDB shall take up Ext.P6 revision and pass appropriate orders at the earliest, after hearing the necessary parties. Let this be done within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is ordered without entering on merits.

¶43

Sd/THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge.

¶44

Sd/C.T.RAVIKUMAR, Judge. kkb.5/1.

K.Kunhiraman v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Kunhiraman 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Millan Abraham & Others Vs Sino.P.Kuriakose

Saji Thomas Vs Shiny.P.

Kaveri S.Thampi Vs Renjith P.S.

Hussain Haji Vs Asya

Binoj Vs Kavitha

K.Sankaran Nair Vs Malabar Devaswom Board