Allowed

P.M.Jose v. the District Lottery Officer

Kerala HC4 Jan 2018WP(C)/219/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, in a writ petition by a lottery agent, directed the District Lottery Officer to consider the petitioner's representation regarding a change in ticket collection location within a month, ensuring an opportunity for participation.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and decide on it within a month after providing an opportunity of participation.

P.M.Jose Vs the District Lottery Officer — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018 / 14TH POUSHA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 219 OF 2018

¶6

------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER

¶8

P.M.JOSE, S/O. MATHAI, (AAKAMSHA AGENCIES, ATHANI, NEDUMBASSERY), RESIDING AT PADAYATTIL HOUSE, ANGAMALY P.O., PIN - 683 572, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV.SRI.WILSON URMESE

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. THE DISTRICT LOTTERY OFFICER, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682011.

¶12

2. THE DIRECTOR OF LOTTERIES, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶13

R1 & R2 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI.SURIN GEORGE IPE

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-012018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

:2:

¶16

WP(C).No. 219 of 2018 (B)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶19

EXHIBIT-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD, ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE IST RESPONDENT

¶20

EXHIBIT-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 31/10/2017, SUBMITTED TO THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶21

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

vgd

PA TO JUDGE

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

W.P.(C) No.219 of 2018

¶27

Dated this the 4^th day of January, 2018

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

Petitioner is a lottery agent, who has been conducting

¶30

lottery agency for the last 12 years at Athani, Nedumbassery

¶31

in Ernakulam District, evident from Ext.P1 Identity Card.

¶32

According to the petitioner, lottery tickets are being issued by

¶33

the District Lottery Office, Ernakulam and the petitioner was

¶34

enjoying the said facility during all these years. Now, according to the petitioner, consequent to opening of a sub

¶35

office at Muvattupuzha , under the territorial limits of the first

¶36

respondent, petitioner is to collect the lottery tickets from the

¶37

sub office at Muvattupuzha. It is stated that, the petitioner is

¶38

a chronic patient undergoing treatment in a hospital, and if

¶39

the petitioner is to receive lottery tickets from the

¶40

W.P.(C) No.219 of 2018

¶41

¶42

Muvattupuzha sub office, it will cause irreparable loss and

¶43

injury to the petitioner. Highlighting the grievance, petitioner has submitted Ext.P2 before the first respondent, which is pending consideration, in which a contention is advanced that, other similarly situated agents are provided with the facility to collect the tickets from the Ernakulam office. Any how these are all matters to be looked into by the first respondent and take a decision at the earliest possible time,

¶44

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶45

learned Government Pleader, there will be a direction to the first respondent to consider Ext.P2, in accordance with law,

¶46

and attain finality to the same, at the earliest possible time,

¶47

after providing opportunity of participation to the petitioner,

¶48

and at any rate, within a month from the date of receipt of a

¶49

copy of this judgment.

¶50

W.P.(C) No.219 of 2018

¶51

¶52

The petitioner is also directed to produce a copy of

¶53

the writ petition along with the appended documents before

¶54

the first respondent.

¶55

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶56

Sd/-

¶57

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE

¶58

dlk/4/1/

P.M.Jose v. the District Lottery Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.M.Jose v. the District Lottery Officer

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

Vazhakkad Valiya Juma Masjid Vs the District Collector

T.N.Udayablan Vs State of Kerala

M.P. Jolly Vs the District Cllector

T.P.Sajad Vs N.C.Ajith Kumar

Anitha.G.L Vs Central Board of Secondary Education

Muraleedharan V.P. Vs State of Kerala