Petitioner challenged non-consideration of his representation. Court directed 2nd respondent to consider representation within one month but declined to adjudicate merits.
Direction to 2nd respondent to consider representation within one month; no merits adjudication.
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
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/16TH POUSHA, 1937
WP(C).No. 198 of 2016 (Y)
PETITIONER:
VINOD.B AGED 42 YEARS
S/O.R. BHASKARAN NAIR, ASSISTANT ENGINEER RELAY SUB DIVISION, PARUTHIPARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM R/A.VASANTHA NILAYAM, CHEKKAKONAM, AZHIKODE KARAKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT
BY ADV. SRI.P.ANOOP (MULAVANA)
RESPONDENTS:
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN PATTOM , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695004
R BY SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 198 of 2016 (Y)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
EXT.P1:-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO EB1(A)/AE(ELE)T & P/2015 DTD TVMP DTD 31/12/2015
EXT.P2:-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO B.O(CM)NO 945/2013(EB.7/GENERAL TRANSFER/2013) DTD 24/4/2013
EXT.P3:-TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD 31/12/2015 FORWARDED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:NIL
TRUE COPY
P.A TO JUDGE
jma
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J
Dated this the 06th day of January, 2016
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is aggrieved with the non-consideration
of Ext.P3 representation filed before the 2nd respondent. The
representation is dated 31.12.2015.
will have to look at the representation filed before it and consider
the same in accordance with law, within a period of one month
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observations on merits,
which the 2nd respondent will consider, in accordance with law.
The writ petition is disposed of.
jma
Sd/(K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE) //true copy//
P.A to Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the respondent authority must consider the petitioner's representation on non-consideration within a prescribed time.
VINOD.B
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD
K. VINOD CHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
