Disposed

Rajan K.R. v. Superidentant, Government Medical College

Kerala HC23 Oct 2018WP(C)/14106/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought a writ directing eviction stay and restoration of electricity for coffee vending machines. The Court observed that the petitioners' representations must be considered and stayed eviction for three months while orders are passed, noting their claims of disability and widow status.

What did the court decide?

No eviction of petitioners from the premises for three months; orders on representation to be passed thereafter.

Rajan K.R. Vs Superidentant, Government Medical College — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 1ST KARTHIKA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 14106 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 RAJAN K.R. AGED 55 YEARS,S/O.RAGHAVAN,KUNJUVALAPPIL,KOLANGATTUKARA, CHOOLISSRY,THRISSUR.

¶8

2 SHIJI.C.A NEELANCHERY HOUSE,PERAMANGALAM,THRISSUR.

¶9

BY ADVS.

¶10

SRI.K.A.SREEJITH SRI.P.V.SREENIVASAN

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 SUPERINTENDENT, GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE MULANKUNATHUKAVU,THRISSUR-680596.

¶13

2 PRINCIPAL GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE,MULANKUNATHUKAVU,THRISSUR680596.

¶14

3 DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE,AYYANTHOLE,THRISSUR-3.

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

VINITHA B GP

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No. 14106 of 2018

¶19

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The petitioners have approached this Court

¶22

seeking the following reliefs:

¶23

“i. This Honourable Court pleased to invoke its inherent jurisdiction vested under Article 226 of Constitution of India by way of Writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction and directing respondents to restore the electricity connection of coffee vending machines of petitioners dismantled by them to enable petitioners to operate their coffee vending machines.

¶24

ii. This Honourable Court pleased to invoke its inherent jurisdiction vested under Article 226 of Constitution of India by way of Writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction and direct Respondents to allow petitioners to conduct the Coffee vending machine.”

¶25

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

¶26

and the learned Governm ent Pleader.

¶27

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for

¶28

the petitioners that pursuant to Ext.P4 notice for hearing issued to the petitioners, in terms of Ext.P2 direction of this Court, no further orders have been communicated to the petitioner. It is stated that pursuant to an interim order rendered by this Court, electric connection to the petitioners premises had

¶29

also been restored.

¶30

WP(C).No. 14106 of 2018

¶31

¶32

4. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed

¶33

on behalf of the respondents and a petition to vacate the interim order is also filed stating that Ext.R1(e) Government order governs the issue and 1/3^rd of the kiosks in public premises are to be allotted to persons with disabilities. The specific case in this writ petition that the first petitioner is a 55% physically handicapped person has apparently not been considered by the respondents.

¶34

5. In any view of the matter, there is a direction by this Court in Ext.P2 to hear the petitioners and to consider their objections and to pass orders on the representation preferred by them. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have approached the competent respondents with such representation as directed in Ext.P2. It appears that notice of hearing was also issued to them.

¶35

In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the representation preferred by the petitioners on 14.3.2018 is liable to be considered and orders passed thereon, after considering their

¶36

WP(C).No. 14106 of 2018 4 contentions as well. Till orders are passed as directed above, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, no further steps shall be taken to evict the petitioners from the premises in question. The specific contentions that the first petitioner is a physically handicapped person and the 2^nd petitioner is an umemployed widow shall also be taken note of, while passing orders, as directed above.

¶37

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN

JUDGE

sab

WP(C).No. 14106 of 2018

¶43

¶44

APPENDIX

¶45

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶46

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ASKING PETITIONERS TO QUIT EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P(C)NO.6979/2018 EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS T0 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF NOTICE HEARING ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶47

TRUE COPY

¶48

PA TO JUDGE, sab

Rajan K.R. v. Superidentant, Government Medical College

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajan K.R. v. Superidentant, Government Medical College

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Biju S Vs Tomin J.Thachankery IAS

Kerala Forest & Tourism Development Council - Idukki Vs State of Kerala

M/S. Celon Labortories Private Limited Vs State of Kerala

Shaiju Abdul Appa , Represented by His Power of Attorney Holder - Abdul Appa Vs State of Kerala

Poruvazhy Peruviruthy Malanada Temple Vs the State of Kerala

Njanodayam Library Vs State of Kerala