Dismissed

Kerala State Small and Medium Enterprises v. Chief Ssecretary

Kerala HC22 Sept 2017WP(C)/12090/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought directions for authorities to consider its representation regarding exclusion from small industry welfare discussions. The Court dismissed the writ petition as totally unnecessary, noting a prior judgment (W.P.(C) No.3744 of 2017) already issued directions to the 4th respondent on this matter.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioner directed to pursue the matter before the authority to whom directions were previously issued.

Kerala State Small and Medium Enterprises Vs Chief… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017/31ST BHADRA, 1939

¶5

W.P(C).No.12090 of 2017 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):-

¶7

KERALA STATE SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISES (KSSMEO), T C NO.24/1023/4, NIKUNJAM DREAM, HOSPITAL ROAD, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, M.B.AFSAL, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.BADARUDHEEN, MANIMUKATHU VADAKKETHIL, VAUVVAKKAVU PO, KARUNAGAPPALLY.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.M.R.SASITH.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):-

¶10

1. CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶11

2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶12

3. KERALA SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.(SIDCO), REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HOUSING BOARD BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶13

4. DIRECTOR OF OF INDUSTRIE AND COMMERCE, VIKAS BHAVAN, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶14

R1, R2 & R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE. R3 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-09-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No.12090 of 2017 (I)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:-

¶19

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR ALAPPUZHA DATED 11.3.2014.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR , DIRECTORATE OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DATED 19.8.2014.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF ONE OF THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY THE ORGANIZATION DATED 20.12.2016 TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO., IND-B2-40/14/DATED 17.12.2014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN WP(C) NO. 3744/2017 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER'S BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT BOARD MEETING HELD ON 27.9.1991.

¶20

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:------------------------NIL. Vku/[true copy ]

¶21

¶22

K. Vinod Chandran, J

¶23

--------------------------------------W.P.(C).No.12090 of 2017-I

¶24

¶25

Dated this the 22^nd day of September, 2017

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

The petitioner seeks for consideration of a representation.

¶28

The grievance of the petitioner-Organization seems to be that the

¶29

said Organization is not being participated in any discussions concerning the welfare of the small and medium industries, both in the manufacturing and service sectors, within the State of Kerala. The petitioner contends that the Kerala State Small Industries Association [for brevity “KSSIA”] alone is participated in the consultation.

¶30

The petitioner was before this Court earlier with a writ

¶31

petition [W.P.(C) No.3744 of 2017] with similar prayers, which was allowed by this Court as per Exhibit P5 and directions were issued to the 1^st respondent in that writ petition, who is the 4^th respondent herein. The petitioner now submits that the representation at Exhibit P6, filed before the Chief Secretary; may be directed to be considered.

¶32

WP(C) No.12090 of 2017

¶33

¶34

The petitioner cannot time and again approach this

¶35

Court for orders against one or the other authorities to consider representations for the same reliefs, when there is already a direction issued at Exhibit P5. The petitioner has to pursue the matter before the authority to whom directions were issued by this Court. The writ petition would stand dismissed for reason of it being totally unnecessary.

¶36

Sd/K.Vinod Chandran Judge.

¶37

Vku/-

¶38

[ true copy ]

Kerala State Small and Medium Enterprises v. Chief Ssecretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kerala State Small and Medium Enterprises v. Chief Ssecretary

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

Job Vs Principal Secreary, Local Self Government

K.Abdul Rahiman Vs the Secretary to Government, Forest & Wilf Life Department

Poultry Farmers & Traders Association of Kerala Vs State of Kerala

Mrs. Annie Marcily Vs Kalamassery Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

P.P.Samuel Vs the Registration Inspector General

Abdul Azeez A.K. Vs the Manager, Bharathi Airtel Ltd., Kochi