D.Prasanth v. Secretary
Case brief
What is this about?
Petitioner claimed payment for completed additional work under a NABARD scheme. Respondents disputed valid consent. Court held it could not intervene due to administrative dispute and directed civil court for redressal.
What did the court decide?
None granted. Writ petition closed, remedy left open. Petitioner to approach Civil Court.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/27TH KARTHIKA, 1938
WP(C).No. 10537 of 2016 (N)
PETITIONER(S):
D.PRASANTH, AGED 38 YEARS S/O.DEVARAJAN, ATTIPRA VEEDU, ARASUMOOD, KULATHOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 695 583.
BY ADV. SRI.K.K.SETHUKUMAR
RESPONDENT(S):
1. SECRETARY VETTIKKAVALA BLOCK PANCHAYATH VETTIKKAVALA P.O., KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN: 691 538.
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER LSGD DIVISION, DISTRICT PANCHAYATH KOLLAM KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Court can invoke jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in a disputed project execution involving NABARD funds.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to redressal through civil courts instead of the Court of Writs based on administrative dispute.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
D. Prasanth
- respondent
Secretary VettiakkavalA Block Panchayath
- respondent
The Executive Engineer LSGD Division
- respondent
The Asst. Executive Engineer LSGD Sub Division
- respondent
The Asst. Engineer LSGD
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court