Disposed

The Director of Public Instructions v. the Kerala State Commission for Protection of Child Rights

Kerala HC19 Jun 2018WP(C)/368/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge held the writ petition filed by the Director of Public Instructions challenging an order of the Commission for Protection of Child Rights is closed as the reliefs sought have become infructuous. All questions of fact and law are left open.

What did the court decide?

None granted; writ petition closed on the ground that the reliefs sought were infructuous.

The Director of Public Instructions Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 29TH JYAISHTA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 368 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.

¶8

BY ADV.GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE KERALA STATE COMMISSION FOR PROTECTION OF CHILD

¶11

RIGHTS, T.C.14/2036, VANROSS JUNCTION, KERALA UNIVERSITY P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,

¶12

REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, 695034.

¶13

2. VISMAYA C.V.

¶14

D/O.VYASAKUMAR, CHAKKALAYIL, KODANCHERY,

¶15

KOZHIKODE - 673580.

¶16

3. THE KERALA STATE SPORTS COUNCIL THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, 695001.

¶17

R1 BY ADV. SRI.A.DINESH RAO

¶18

R3 BY SMT.LATHA ANAND, SC, KERALA STATE SPORTS COUNCIL

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C).No. 368 of 2018 (U)

¶21

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶23

EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT CRMP NO.9288/11/LA2/2017/KESCPCR FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT/OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.12.2017 IN CRMP NO.9288/11/LA2/2017/KESCPCR OF THE KERALA STATE COMMISSION FOR PROTECTION CHILD RIGHTS. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶24

EXHIBIT R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT ISSUED BY KERALA SPEEDBALL ASSOCIATION DATED 7.9.2017 SUBMITTED BEFORE COMMISSION EXHIBIT R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO 30209/2015 DATED 7.10.2015 EXHIBIT R1(C) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO 36715/2016 DATED 22.11.2016 EXHIBIT R1(D) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 9.10.2017 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

dlk/19/6/18

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

W.P(C)No.368 of 2018

Dated this the 19^th day of June, 2018

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

This writ petition is filed by the Director of Public

¶33

Instructions, Thiruvananthapuram challenging Ext.P3 order

¶34

passed by the Child Rights Commission under the provisions of

¶35

the Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, seeking

¶36

the following reliefs:-

¶37

“i) To set aside Exhibit P1 Complaint and Exhibit P3 order of the 1^st Respondent

¶38

ii) To declare that Exhibit P1 complaint is not maintainable in so far as it does not contain an allegation of violation of Child Rights or any indenture for exercising any of the powers and functions enumerated under Section 13 of the Act or under Rue 17 of the Rules

¶39

iii) To declare that the 1^st respondent has no jurisdiction to direct inclusion of any item of competition or games in the State School Athletics and Games Meet.”

¶40

Apparently from the tenor and terms of the pleadings

¶41

and the reliefs sought for it is evident that, the relief given by the

¶42

¶43

¶44

Child Rights Commission as per Ext.P3 has become infructuous

¶45

for all practical purposes. Even though various contentions are

¶46

raised by the counsel appearing for the Child Rights Commission

¶47

including the one that the petitioner has no power to file a writ petition of the nature, I think it is only appropriate that the writ

¶48

petition is given a quietus leaving open those contentions raised .

¶49

Therefore, the writ petition is closed holding that the reliefs sought for has become infructuous, however, all the question of facts and law raised by the petitioner as well as the respondents are left open to be considered in a properly constituted proceedings.

¶50

Writ petition is closed accordingly.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE

¶53

dlk/19/6/18

The Director of Public Instructions v. the Kerala State Commission for Protection of Child Rights

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Director of Public Instructions v. the Kerala State Commission for Protection of Child Rights

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

Narayana Menon @ Unni Vs K.Mohammad Y Safirulla

C.Raveendran Vs District Collector

Saritha Susan Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Abu Mathew Vs Ajayakumar

Antony C.C Vs Bhasid Bahulaeyan

Vineeth Vishnu Vs the State of Kerala