Petitioner was absent when counsel for the respondent cited a prior judgment. The Court disposed of the petition relying on that precedent, leaving the petitioner open for a re-hearing. No costs were awarded.
The writ petition was disposed of following the cited judgment of Mary Ulahannan v. Union of India.
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 DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/19TH KARTHIKA, 1938
WP(C).No. 38084 of 2010 (I)
PETITIONER:
SOPHIA.A.S, W/O. SASI, AGED 34 YEARS, KAVELLIDUKUDIYIL HOUSE, SANTHINAGAR, KEERAMPARA.P.O, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SMT.R.RAJASREE (NO CODE)
RESPONDENT(S):
1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND, NATURAL GAS, SASTHRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI - 110001.
2. SENIOR DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES MANAGER,
3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU682030.
4. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001.
R1 BY ADVS. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL
SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI R2 BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS R3,R4 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI C.K.PRASAD
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC 38084 OF 2010:
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
K.V.
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
W.P.(C)No.38084 of 2010
Dated this the 10th day of November, 2016
J U D G M E N T
When the matter was called, the learned counsel appearing for the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. says that the issues raised in this writ petition are covered by a judgment of this Court in Mary Ulahannan v. Union of India (2011(3)KLT 570) . The learned counsel for the petitioner is not present today. However, since these matters are included in the 'targeted for disposal list', I do not think it appropriate to adjourn the matter any further.
In the nature of circumstances and facts of this case, I make no order as to costs and I direct the parties to suffer their respective costs.
All pending interlocutory applications are closed.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE
ami/11.11.16
//True copy//
P.A.to Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition featuring the petitioner against the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. should be disposed of by previous judgment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mary Ulahannan v. Union of IndiaRelied on¶35
Mary Ulahannan v. Union of India (2011(3)KLT 570)
SOPHIA.A.S
UNION OF INDIA
SENIOR DIVISIONAL RETAIL SALES MANAGER
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
Parties & counsel
