Single-judge High Court of Kerala dismissed an infructuous writ petition seeking promotion to Additional Director for the petitioner. The dismissal was based on the pending vigilance case registered against the petitioner, rendering further consideration impossible.
The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous.
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
THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/27TH PHALGUNA, 1937
W.P.(C).No.9981 of 2006 (L)
PETITIONER(S):-
DR.THOMAS KOILPARAMPIL, S/O.LATE SEBASTIAN JOSEPH, AGED 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHRISMAS, HOUSE NO. 13/1606(1), BURMA ROAD, KUMARAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 11.
BY ADV. SRI.V.N.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR.
RESPONDENT(S):-
R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.JAMAL.
R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.SREEKUMAR, SC, REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE. R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.R.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.
R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU (SR.)
R3 BY ADV. SRI.ABDUL KHARIM, SC, REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
K. Vinod Chandran, J
-------------------------------------W.P.(C) No.9981 of 2006-L
Dated this the 17th day of March, 2016
JUDGMENT
None appears for the petitioner when the matter was taken up for hearing.
and forged. The review was allowed and the writ petition was restored to file.
WP(C).No.9981 of 2006 - 2 -
hearing, the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent contended that a vigilance case registered against the petitioner is still pending and no consideration could be made for promotion.
Taking all the circumstances into consideration, the
writ petition is found to be infructuous and the same is dismissed
as such.
Sd/-
K.Vinod Chandran Judge.
vku/-
[ true copy ]
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition for promotion and consideration of representation infructuous due to pending vigilance case.
Dismissal of the petition as infructuous.
Dr.Thomas Koilparampil
Governing Body of R.C.C.
Executive Committee of R.C.C.
Regional Cancer Centre, Thiruvananthapuram
K.Vinod Chandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
