Allowed

Johnson v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 May 2016WP(C)/6670/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, on an application to admit a writ petition seeking permission to carry on street vending avocation near Malampuzha garden, directed the second respondent (Chief Engineer) to consider the petitioners' representation within six weeks after affording an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to consider the Ext.P2 representation submitted by the petitioners, after affording them an opportunity for hearing, as expeditiously as possible within six weeks.

Johnson Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2016/2ND JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 6670 of 2016 (G)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

1. JOHNSON C.V., S/O.VARGHESE, AGED 37 YEARS, CHOVALLUR HOUSE, KANHIRAKADAVU, MALAMPUZHA, PALAKKAD - 678 651.

¶8

2. K.A.MATHEW, KARAKKATTUMUTTATHIL, OLAPPALLAM, CHEMBANA, MALAMPUZHA, PALAKKAD - 678 651.

¶9

3. GOPALAKRISHNAN V., PANTHARIKUTH HOUSE, S.N.NAGAR, MALAMPUZHA, PALAKKAD - 678 651.

¶10

4. LEENA KUMARI, MANACKALKADU, MALAMPUZHA, PALAKKAD - 678 651.

¶11

5. SOBHANA, PUTHENHOUSE, S.N.NAGAR, MALAMPUZHA, PALAKKAD-678 651.

¶12

6. PRAVEEN KUMAR, ATHIRA NIVAS, S.N.NAGAR, MALAMPUZHA, PALAKKAD-678 651.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN

¶14

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶15

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶16

...2/-

¶17

WP(C).No. 6670 of 2016 (G) -2-

¶18

2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION PROJECT ONE, KAVERY CELL, KOZHIODE, PIN - 673 001. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DIVISION, MALAMPUZHA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678 651.

¶19

R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. GIKKU JACOB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

¶21

...3/-

¶22

WP(C).No. 6670 of 2016 (G)

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶25

EXT. P1 - A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED FEBRUARY 19, 2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶26

EXT. P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED MARCH 8, 2016.

¶27

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES :

¶28

ANNEXURE R3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(MS) NO. 329/HOME(SPL.SS) DATED 28.6.1963.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶33

-----------------------------------------------W.P.(C).No. 6670 of 2016

¶34

-----------------------------------------------Dated this the 23^rd day of May, 2016

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

The limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, when this matter was taken up for admission today, is for a direction to the second respondent to consider Ext.P2 representation submitted by them expeditiously. The petitioners were street vendors near Malampuzha garden. Ext.P2 is the representation filed by them before the second respondent seeking permission to carry on their avocation. It is alleged that the Irrigation Department has given permission to similarly placed persons to carry on their avocation near Malampuzha garden. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of

¶37

W.P.(C).No. 6670 of 2016

¶38

-2-

¶39

the case, I deem it appropriate to grant the limited relief sought by the petitioners.

¶40

In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing

¶41

the second respondent to consider Ext.P2 representation submitted by the petitioners, after affording them an opportunity for hearing, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶42

I.A. No.3644/16 : Allowed.

¶43

Sd/-

¶44

P.B. SURESH KUMAR JUDGE

¶45

bpr

Johnson v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Johnson v. State of Kerala

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

Saraswathy Gopi Vs the District Collector

Mariyam Vs Kerala State Haj Committee

P.Kumaran Vs the Tahsildar Ottapalam

V.Aravindan Vs the State of Kerala

Major Arcbishop and 2 Others Vs P.a.Lalan Tharakan and 12 Others

T.M.Prabhakara Kaimal Vs Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority