Disposed

V.R Joseph, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Mar 2017WP(C)/3251/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court addressed a writ petition by a petitioner seeking a license to operate a Chinese net under Cochin Port Trust jurisdiction. The court clarified jurisdictional confusion, directing both respondents to consider the application within two months, and permitted the petitioner to continue operations pending a final decision.

What did the court decide?

Directors allowed respondent authorities to decide the application within two months; petitioner permitted to continue operations during this period.

V.R Joseph, Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2017/10TH PHALGUNA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 3251 of 2017 (F)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

V.R. JOSEPH, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. RAPHEL, RESIDING AT VETTUSSERI HOUSE, VADUTHALA P.O., ERNAKULAM-682 023.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.R.PUSHPANGATHAN PILLAI

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶11

2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, ERNAKULAM REGION, ERNAKULAM-682 031.

¶12

3. COCHIN PORT TRUST, WILLINGTON ISLAND, ERNAKULAM - 682 003, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 4. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, COCHIN PORT TRUST, WILLINGTON ISLAND, ERNAKULAM-682 003. R1-R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. S. KANNAN R3 & R4 BY ADVS. SRI.K.ANAND (SR.) SMT.LATHA ANAND SC. SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

SKG

¶15

WP(C).No. 3251 of 2017 (F)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

P1 TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED BY THE KERALA BUILDINGS AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE BOARD (M. NO. 070004528) P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE PASSBOOK ISSUED BY THE KERALA BUILDING AND OTHER CON. WORKERS WELFARE BOARD WITH THE ACCOUNTING BEING MAINTAINED AT DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, ERNAKULAM P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE/REFERENCE CARD SHOWING THE DETAILS OF TREATMENT AND THE MEDICINES ADMINISTERED. P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 18/01/2017 ALONG WITH DULY FILLED PRESCRIBED PROFORMA

¶19

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S. TO JUDGE

SKG

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶25

W.P.(C). NO. 3251 OF 2017

¶26

Dated this the 01^st day of March, 2017

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

According to the petitioner, petitioner has submitted

¶29

Ext.P4 application seeking a license to operate a chinese

¶30

net in Vaduthala within the jurisdiction of the third respondent namely Cochin Port Trust, before the second respondent. Non-consideration of the same on an early basis is the grievance highlighted by the petitioner and thus seeks appropriate directions.

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Senior Government Pleader and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the third and fourth respondents and perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth by the petitioner.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in the writ petition. However, learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent submits that Ext. P4 application is laid before the second respondent who is not a competent authority since the area in which the petitioner has sought license to operate the chinese net is

¶33

W.P.(C). NO. 3251 OF 2017 2

¶34

within the jurisdiction of Cochin Port Trust.

¶35

However, learned Government Pleader submitted that the authority to consider Ext. P4 application is the second respondent. Anyhow in order to avoid the confusion and commotion that has occurred consequent to the said submission, the petitioner will also be at liberty to submit an application before the third respondent, seeking a license for operating the chinese net. Both parties shall consider the application submitted by the petitioner taking note of the respective provisions of law in vogue and attain finality to the same within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and proper applications submitted by the petitioner.

¶36

It is also submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the application submitted by the petitioner before the second respondent is not in proper format. Petitioner may cure the defect if any to the same. Till such time a decision is taken petitioner is permitted to operate the chinese net since I am told that already the chinese net

¶37

W.P.(C). NO. 3251 OF 2017 3

¶38

is installed and operations are going on which will be guided by the orders passed by the statutory authorities as directed above.

¶39

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶40

SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶41

DCS

V.R Joseph, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.R Joseph, 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

Althaf Jan K.N Vs the Cenral Board of Secondary Education

James Vs State of Kerala

Arjun.R Vs Standing Disability Assessment Board

Intimate Machines Pvt. Ltd. Vs Kerala State Women'S Development Corporation Ltd.

Philip M.K. Vs Land Tribunal Special Tahsildar (Lr)

G. Somsekharan Nair Vs State of Kerala