Disposed

Sivadasan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Nov 2019WP(C)/1688/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala closed a writ petition filed in 2012 challenging a 2011 decision to retain a ration dealership. The Court held that adjudication after eight years was not appropriate, leaving the petitioner's rights undisturbed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is closed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to approach this court again if the grievance still subsists.

Sivadasan Vs State of Kerala — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 30TH KARTHIKA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.1688 OF 2012(I)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SIVADASAN

¶8

AGED 48 YEARS S/O.SANKU, ASWATHY BHAVANAM, KANNAMKAR MUKALIL, PALAMEL VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.B.RENJITHKUMAR SMT.AJITHALAKSHMI SABU

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001.

¶12

2 DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER ALAPPUZHA 688001.

¶13

3 TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER MAVELIKKARA 688003.

¶14

4 BABU ENNAKKAD VEEDU, AKKAMUKKU, KUDASSANAD, PALAMEL VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA 688003.

¶15

BY ADV.SMT.VINITHA.B, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No.1688 OF 2012(I)

¶18

¶19

W.P.(C) No.1688 of 2012

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

In terms of Ext.P4 order dated 09.12.2011, the competent authority under the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966 has ordered to retain an authorised ration dealership at a particular place. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said decision and hence, this writ petition.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.

¶23

It is seen that the writ petition is one instituted in the year 2012 and the petitioner has not been granted any interim order in the matter. The impugned decision being one taken having regard to the facts and circumstances prevailing in the year 2011, according to me, an adjudication as to the correctness of the same after about 8 years may not be appropriate.

¶24

In the circumstances, the writ petition is closed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to approach this court again, if the grievance of the petitioner still subsists..

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR

JUDGE

WP(C).No.1688 OF 2012(I)

¶30

¶31

APPENDIX

¶32

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶33

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF DECISION OF THE PANCHAYTH COMMITTEE DATED 22.07.2008 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.12.2010 IN W.P.(C)NO.37041/2010 (E) EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 6.9.2011 IN W.P.(C) 24281/2011 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.C.S.5.2102/98 DATED 9.12.2011 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶34

//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

Sivadasan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sivadasan 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

Arshad Hussain, Vs the Superintendent of Police (Rural)

Shaji v Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

C.U.John Vs the District Supply Officer

T.K.Gopi Vs State of Kerala

Jibin Jacob Vs the State of Kerala

P.B.Khabeerkhan Vs the State of Kerala