Disposed

T.Kumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Jul 2018WP(C)/22761/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On 9-7-2018, this Court disposed of a writ petition alleging maladministration and corruption regarding state sports grants. The Court directed the respondents to dispose of the petitioner's representation within six weeks after hearing all stakeholders, without examining the merits of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st respondent to dispose of the petitioner's representation within six weeks after hearing all stakeholders.

T.Kumar Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.HRISHIKESH ROY &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶5

MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 18TH ASHADHA, 1940

¶6

WP(C).No. 22761 of 2018

¶7

PETITIONER(S)

¶8

T.KUMAR AGED 51 YEARS, S/O THANKAPPAN, RESIDING AT TC 39/990, MAYOORA HOUSE, KILLIPALAM, CHALAI P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV.SRI.R.NIKHIL

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY FOR SPORTS AND YOUTH AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-69501.

¶12

2. KERALA STATE SPORTS COUNCIL REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, OFFICE OF THE KERALA STATE SPORTS COUNCIL, STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶13

3. THE SECRETARY

¶14

KERALA STATE SPORTS COUNCIL,

¶15

OFFICE OF THE KERALA STATE SPORTS COUNCIL,

¶16

STATUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶17

4. KERALA CYCLE POLO ASSOCIATION

¶18

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,

¶19

T.C.NO.20/1232,KARAMANA P.O.,

¶20

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695002.

¶21

R2,R3 BY ADV. SMT.LATHA ANAND, SC, KERALA STATE SPORTS COUNCIL R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ARAVIND KUMAR BABU R4 BY SRI.S.M.PREM

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

WP(C).No. 22761 of 2018 (S)

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶26

EXHIBIT P1 A SHORT PROFILE OF THE PETITIONER

¶27

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE GRANT -IN-AID REGULATIONS, 2013.

¶28

EXHIBIT P3 A COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE ASSOCIATIONS GRANT REGISTER.

¶29

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 06.03.2018 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶30

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL

¶31

//TRUE COPY//

¶32

P.A TO JUDGE

¶33

HRISHIKESH ROY, Ag.C.J. & A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶34

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

¶35

W.P(C). No. 22761 of 2018

¶36

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9^th day of July, 2018

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

Hrishikesh Roy, Ag.C.J.

¶39

Heard, Sri.R.Nikhil, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Aravind Kumar Babu, the learned Government pleader appearing for the 1^st respondent, Smt.Latha Anand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 and Sri.S.M.Prem, the learned counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent.

¶40

The petitioner is an accomplished Cycle Polo Player and is currently coaching the new generation of players in the discipline. He filed this Public Interest Litigation (PIL) alleging maladministration and corruption in the functioning and disbursement of grants, providing funds for uniforms and providing of grace marks to the players. The complaints are enumerated in Ext.P4 representation dated 06.03.2018.

¶41

Since several issues have been raised by the player, it is suggested by the learned Government Pleader that direction can be issued for the disposal of the petitioner's Ext.P4 representation, by the 1^st respondent. This suggestion is acceptable to the petitioner's lawyer.

¶42

In view of above, without entering into the merit of the writ petition, we direct disposal of the Ext.P4 representation, by the 1^st respondent. However, before a decision is taken, all the stakeholders including the petitioner should be afforded the opportunity of hearing. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition

¶43

¶44

W.P(C). No. 22761 of 2018

¶45

along with a copy of this judgment, before the 1^st respondent, for further action. Necessary orders should be passed within six weeks from the date of production of

¶46

a copy of this judgment , after hearing the stakeholders including the petitioner.

¶47

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶51

mns

T.Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Kumar 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

Shamsudeen Para Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Atc Telecom Vs Kerala State Warehousing

Santhosh Vs Cherpulassery Municipality

Anlet Jou U.A Vs State of Kerala

Dr Raghavan Vs Asokan

Dr. Ligi George Vs Authorized Officer, Uco Bank