Disposed

Stella.P.P. v. Managing Director K.S.W.D.C.

Kerala HC12 Oct 2015WP(C)/25683/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners residents of a State Women's Development Corporation hostel challenged eviction notices. The Court observed that since the original hostels Warden was removed, it is just to direct the current Respondent to issue a one-month notice with reasons for eviction, if necessary.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 1st Respondent to issue one month's notice with reasons for eviction if necessary, allowing petitioners to continue if no embargo exists.

Stella.P.P. Vs Managing Director K.S.W.D.C. — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015/20TH ASWINA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 25683 of 2006 (G) ----------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

STELLA P.P., D/O. P.A. PADMANABHAN, PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, KARUMALLOOR P.O. THATTAMPADY NORTH PAROOR. 2. JANCY JOSEPH, D/O. JOSEPH, THEMANAYIL HOUSE, KARIKKOTTAKKARI, KOOMANTHODU P.O KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. CHANDRIKA P.C., D/O. P.A. CHINNAPPAN, PUTHEN HOUSE, KALLEPPADAM, PAZHAYANNOOR P.O. THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶8

RAGH SAHADEV, D/O. SAHADEVAN, GOKULAM, ATHINADU SOUTH, KALUMOODU JN KATTILKADAVU P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.J.KURIACHAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE KERALA STATE WOMEN'S DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION THAZHEVILA BUILDING, T.C.13/2054-1, MEDES LANE UNIVERSITY P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

PADMAVATHI, WARDEN-IN-CHARGE, K.S.W.D.C. WORKING WOMEN'S, HOSTEL GANDHI NAGAR, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

R1 BY SRI.N.MANOJ KUMAR, STANDING COUNSEL FOR KSWDC LTD.

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-10-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No. 25683 of 2006 (G)

¶15

A P P E N D I X

¶16

PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS

¶17

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SENT TO R1 DT.10.08.2006.

¶18

EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SENT TO THE HON’BLE MINISTER SMT.SREEMATHI TEACHER.

¶19

EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶20

EXT.P4 SERIES: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICES ISSUED TO PETITIONERS 1, 2 & 4.

¶21

EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER DT.1.7.2005.

¶22

RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS’

¶23

EXT.R1(a): TRUE COPY OF INSPECTION REPORT OF THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DT.30.8.2006.

¶24

EXT.R1(b): TRUE COPY OF THE SUSPENSION ORDER NO.KSWDC/A4/GEN/HOSTEL/02 DT.30.08.2006 OF THE KERALA STATE WOMEN’S DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.

¶25

EXT.R1(c): TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 19.08.2006 MADE BY THE PRINCIPAL OF ANGANWADY WORKER’S TRAINING CENTRE, ERNAKULAM.

/TRUE COPY/

P.S TO JUDGE

P.V.ASHA, J.

W.P(c) No.25683 of 2006-G

¶30

Dated this the 12^th day of October, 2015

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

The petitioners are inmates of a Working Women’s hostel, run by the Kerala State Women’s Development Corporation. At

¶33

the time when the Writ Petition was filed, it was stated that the petitioners had been residing there for the preceding 3 years. The Writ Petition was filed when notices were issued to the writ petitioners directing them to vacate the hostel before 30.09.2006 This Court, on 29.09.2006, recorded the undertaking given by the learned Standing Counsel for the 1^st respondent that Exts.P3 and P4 will not be enforced till he files a counter affidavit and on 09.10.2006, this Court had granted the interim order as prayed for.

¶34

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 1^st petitioner continues her residence in the hostel.

¶35

In view of the fact that the complaints of the petitioners were as against the then Warden and action was already taken against her based on such complaints, the

¶36

W.P(c) No.25683 of 2006-G 2

¶37

petitioners will not be having any substantial grievance. In the changed circumstances, it is only just and proper that the 1^st respondent issues one month’s notice to the petitioners, in case it is found necessary to evict them. Needless to say that, such notices shall contain the reasons for eviction. In case it is found that there is no embargo in retaining the petitioners in the hostel, then they shall be allowed to continue.

¶38

With the above observations, this Writ Petition is closed.

¶39

Sd/- (P.V.ASHA, JUDGE) rtr/

Stella.P.P. v. Managing Director K.S.W.D.C.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Stella.P.P. v. Managing Director K.S.W.D.C.

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

Sathish Babu Vs Meeral R.Bhat

Dr.E.Sreedharan Vs the Principal Secretary and Others

Rajinraj R. Vs Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit

Dr.O. Raghuthaman Vs the Commissioner of Municipalities

Sunitha K.N Vs Joint Registrar of Co-Op. Societies

Sunil P.K. Vs the Tahsildar