Disposed

G.Raveendran v. the Kerala State Electricity Board

Kerala HC2 Jan 2014WP(C)/55/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a writ petition wherein the petitioner sought mandamus directing the Kerala State Electricity Board to consider a pending representation and provide an opportunity of hearing within six weeks, avoiding a trial on merits.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed with a direction to the First Respondent to consider Ext.P5 and afford an opportunity of hearing within six weeks.

G.Raveendran Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JANUARY 2014/12TH POUSHA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 55 of 2014 (F)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

G.RAVEENDRAN, S/O.GOPALAN, CHIRAVILA VEEDU, KOTTIYAM P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR, SRI.JOHN THITHEEMOS.

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY , PIN-695 001.

¶11

2. PERSONAL OFFICER, PERSONAL DEPARTMENT, THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.

¶12

BY SRI.JAICE JACOB,S.C.

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-01-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Prv.

¶15

W.P.(C).NO.55/2014-F:

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶18

P1:THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO BO(FM)NO 2515/2006 DTD. 6/10/2006 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶19

P2:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. BO(CM)NO. 1476/2010 (PS I(A)/ GRATUITY/ADV.FEE/2009/PARTII)DTD. 7/6/2010 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶20

P3:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. BO(CM)NO 1043/2011(PS I(A)/GRATUITYGENERAL/2009)DTD. 19/4/2011 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶21

P4:TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 23/2/2011.

¶22

P4(A):- TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 29/12/2011 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶23

P5:TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED REPRESENTATION DTD. 21/3/2012.

¶24

P6:TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER DTD. 13/11/2013.

¶25

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

Prv.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.(C). No. 55 of 2014

¶32

¶33

Dated this the 2^nd day of January, 2014

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

The petitioner has approached this Court with the following

¶36

prayers:

¶37

“i. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the 1^st respondent to consider Ext.P5 and P6 representation and reminder and also afford an opportunity to be heard by the petitioner, within a short span of time as fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶38

ii. To modify Ext.P3 order and declare that, the enhancement of 'fees' can be extended with retrospective effect from the date of Ext.P2 order or at least pending litigation.”

¶39

When the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grievance of the petitioner has also been projected by way of Exts.P5 representations which is pending consideration before the first respondent and that the petitioner will be satisfied, if a direction is given to the said respondent to consider and dispose of the same within a reasonable time.

¶40

Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶41

W.P.C. No. 55 of 2014

¶42

-2-

¶43

Considering the limited nature of relief sought for, this Court does not find it necessary to go into the merits of the case. In the said circumstance, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P5 in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner at the earliest, at any rate, within 'six weeks' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶44

The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the first respondent for further steps.

¶45

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶46

kp/-

G.Raveendran v. the Kerala State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Raveendran v. the Kerala State Electricity Board

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

Sivarajan.K Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Renuka Suresh Vs District Collector

Sri.K.P.Vijayakumar Vs M/S.Kerala Automobile Ltd.

Thankamma Kurumban Vs the Tahsildar

Fina K.Jose Vs the Additional Tahsildar

Amrutha Raj Vs the State of Kerala