Dismissed

Jessy Varghese v. the Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam

Kerala HC4 Feb 2015WP(C)/7114/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, on hearing a writ petition filed for removal of an alleged illegal waiting shed, was informed that no further construction was taking place and the structure did not exist.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is closed without prejudice to the petitioner's right to approach a competent forum if aggrieved by any further action by the respondents.

Jessy Varghese Vs the Regional… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/15TH MAGHA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 7114 of 2012 (L)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

JESSY VARGHESE, AGED 46 YEARS, D/O.LATE K.A.VARGHESE, KARINGEN HOUSE, NADUVATTAM.P.O, KALADY(VIA), ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683572.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.N.T.NANDAKUMAR (PARAVUR) SRI.ASHISH MOHAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682030.

¶11

2. JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,

¶12

ANGAMALY, PIN-683572.

¶13

3. ANGAMALY MUNICIPALITY, ANGAMALY, PIN-683572,

¶14

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶15

4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROADS DIVISION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN-682030.

¶16

R1, R2 & R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.SUNITHA VINOD R3 BY ADV. SRI.R.S.SARAT

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

mbr/

¶19

WP(C).No. 7114 of 2012 (L)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:

¶22

EXT-P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECIEPT NO.3001406 ISSUED BY ANGAMALY VILLAGE OFFICER.

¶23

EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SENT TO RESPONDENT NO.3. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SENT TO RESPONDENT NO.4.

¶24

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: - NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

¶29

W.P.(C) No. 7114 of 2012

¶30

Dated this the 4^th day of February, 2015

¶31

J U D G M E N T

¶32

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for

¶33

removal of the alleged illegal waiting shed on the side of the road.

¶34

Today, when the matter came up for hearing,

¶35

the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, there was no further construction and the structure already constructed is not existing.

¶36

Therefore, the writ petition is closed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to approach a competent forum if and when she is aggrieved by any further action by the respondents.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE

¶39

bka/-

Jessy Varghese v. the Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jessy Varghese v. the Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam

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

Tamilvanan Vs State of Kerala

Rajeev.K.R. Vs Chief Engineer Hrm, K.S.E.B

Jose Vs Regional Transport Officer

P.K. Jaleel Vs the Kerala State Wakf Board

M.M.Luca Vs the District Collector

C.G.Joy Vs Secretary, Vadakkekara Grama Panchayath