Disposed

Johny Joseph v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 May 2012WP(C)/4230/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ petition challenging an order under Section 406 of the Municipality Act on the ground of discrimination. While noting statutory remedies existed, the Court directed the impugned order to remain in abeyance for one month to enable the petitioner to pursue statutory routes.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order (Ext.P6) is kept in abeyance for one month to enable the petitioner to pursue statutory remedies.

Johny Joseph 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 ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2012/1ST JYAISHTA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 4230 of 2012 (C)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

JOHNY JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, OLIKKAROTT, BUILDING NO.XXX/35, COLLEGE ROAD, CHANGANACHERRY.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.JOHN VARGHESE, SRI.P.M.JOSEPH.

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF ADMINSTRATION (R.A),

¶11

GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶12

2. CHANGANACHERRY MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNCIPAL BUILDING, CHANGACHARRY P.O, - 686 101.

¶13

3. THE SECRETARY, CHANGANACHERRY MUNICIPALITY, MUNCIPAL BUILDING, CHANGANACHERRY-686 101.

¶14

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. M. MUHAMMED SHAFI. R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-05-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

W.P.(C).NO.4230/2012-C:

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶19

EXT.P1:-	TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO KSTP/M.904/11 DTD. 21/10/2011 ISSUED BY THE KERALA STATE TRANSPORT POJECT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P2:-	TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO E2/13550/10 DTD 20/11/2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P3:-	TRUE COPY OF REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITINER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 25/11/2010.
EXT.P4:-	TRUE COPY OF PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE MINISTER FOR LOCAL SELF ADMINSTATION DTD. 7/10/2011
EXT.P5:-	TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO C-1507/11 DTD. 1/12/2011 ISSUED BY THE TOWN PLANNER, KOTTAYAM TO THE IST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P6:-	TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO E2/10889/11 DTD. 14/2/2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P7:-	TRUE COPY OF PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE VIGILANCE DIRECTOR DTD. 16/1/2012.

¶20

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

Prv.

ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 4230 OF 2012

¶25

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

¶26

Dated this the 22^nd day of May, 2012

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

Ext.P6 is an order passed by the Secretary of the Municipality exercising his powers under Section 406 of the Act. It is challenging this order, the writ petition has been filed.

¶29

Admittedly, statutory remedies are available against this order and the only reason highlighted in this writ petition is that the petitioner has been discriminated. The case of discrimination is sought to be substantiated by contending that while the impugned order has been passed against the petitioner, similar benefit has been extended to others.

¶30

First of all, apart from the vague averments in this behalf, I do not find any ground to accept the plea of the petitioner. Secondly, even if it is so, that certainly is a ground for the petitioner to urge in the appeal to be filed. Therefore, the petitioner has to pursue the statutory remedies.

¶31

Be that as it may, having regard to the fact that this Court has passed an order directing that Ext.P6 shall be kept in abeyance, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction that it will

¶32

WPC.No.4230/12

¶33

:2 :

¶34

be open to the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedies against Ext.P6 and in order to enable him to do so and seek appropriate interim orders, I also direct that Ext.P6 shall be kept

¶35

in abeyance for a further period of one month.

¶36

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶37

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶38

Johny Joseph v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Johny Joseph 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.P.Abdul Salam Vs the Guruvayoor Municipality

Abdul Kalam K.G. Vs Cochin Corporation, Rep. by Its Secretary

Shibu George Vs State of Kerala

K.J.Peter Vs Corporation of Cochin

M. Shajahan Vs Nedumangad Municipality

Madathil Hussain Vs Areecode Grama Panchayath