Writ petition challenging the legality of a notice issued by Kerala Women's Commission. Court found the matter infructuous as the 2nd respondent had closed proceedings and referred the case for legal aid, rendering no proceeding pending.
The writ petition was closed on the finding that no proceeding is pending before the 2nd respondent.
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.HARILAL
TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/20168TH BHADRA, 1938
WP(C).No. 35284 of 2010 (I)
PETITIONER(S):
MUHAMMAD JAMAL, CHELEKODAN HOUSE,
MEENANGADI.P.O., WYNAD-673 591.
BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN
RESPONDENT(S):
1. RAHIYANATH, VAKAYIL HOUSE, BELOW CHILLING PLANT, MEENANGADI.P.O.,
WYNAD. 673 591.
2. KERALA WOMEN'S COMMISSION,
BY ADV. SMT.O.H.NAZEEBA BY SMT.A.PARVATHI MENON
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
bp
WP(C).No. 35284 of 2010 (I)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :
RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES : NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
bp
K.HARILAL, J.
W.P.(C) No.35284 of 2010
Dated this the 30th day of August, 2016
JUDGMENT ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The 1st respondent had preferred Ext.P4 complaint against the petitioner before the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent, in response to the said complaint, issued Ext.P5 notice to the petitioner. Thereafter on 8.7.2010 both parties were present before the 2nd respondent and agreed to undergo DNA test and accordingly Ext.P6 notice was issued calling upon the petitioner to be present before the 2nd respondent. The legality and propriety of Ext.P6 notice are under challenge in this writ petition.
W.P.(C).35284/10-I :2:
referred the matter to the District Legal Service Committee on 03.01.2011, for providing legal aid to the
1st respondent.
Sd/K.HARILAL, Judge.
okb
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the validity of the notice issued by the 2nd respondent is maintainable given the inaction of the lower authority.
Whether the writ petition is infructuous due to the closure of proceedings by the 2nd respondent.
Whether the matter should be closed on the finding that no proceeding is pending before the 2nd respondent.
Muhammad Jamal
Rahiyath
Kerala Women's Commission
K. Harilal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
