K.a.Mathew Vs State of Kerala

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY ,THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 23RD MAGHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 2717 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 K.A.MATHEW AGED 52 YEARS S/O ANTONY, KARAKKATTUMUTTATHIL, OLAPPALLAM, CHEMBANA, MALAMPUZHA, PALAKKAD-678 651.

¶8

2 GOPALAKRISHNAN V. AGED 44 YEARS

¶9

S/O VASUDEVAN, PANTHARIKUTH HOUSE, S.N.NAGAR, MALAMPUZHA, PALAKKAD-678 651.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN SMT.ANU JACOB SRI.K.V.WINSTON

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶13

2 THE CHIEF ENGINEER DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION PROJECT ONE, KAVERY CELL, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673 001.

¶14

3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DIVISION, MALAMPUZHA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 651.

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

SMT.AMMINIKUTTY-SR.GP

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No. 2717 of 2019

¶19

2

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

The limited prayer made by the petitioners, who claim to be street vendors coming within the sweep of Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), is that Ext.P6 representation of theirs be directed to be disposed of by the competent Authority.

¶22

According to the petitioners, they have been conducting business in the premises of the 'Malampuzha Dam' as per permission given to them by the Irrigation Department and therefore, that they have a right to continue there under the provisions of the Act.

¶23

The learned Senior Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents, submits that there is absolutely nothing on record to show that any licence had been given to the petitioners as asserted by them or regarding their entitlement to claim the status of a street vendor and further that it is not clear whether they can make such an assertion with respect to the premises owned by the Irrigation Department. She says that she is not even sure if Ext.P6 has been received by the Authority as is alleged by the petitioners.

¶24

WP(C).No. 2717 of 2019

¶25

3

¶26

Taking note of the afore submissions, I direct that even in case Ext.P6 has not been received by the 2^nd respondent, then the 3^rd respondent herein, who is stated to be the competent Authority, will treat Ext.P6 in these proceedings as a valid representation and dispose it of, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners as per law, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶27

On the contrary, if Ext.P6 had been received and has been already disposed of, then the competent Authority will favour a copy of the decision, taken thereon, to the petitioners within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

rp-12.2

¶32

WP(C).No. 2717 of 2019

¶33

4

¶34

APPENDIX

¶35

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶36

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED MAY 23, 2016 IN WPC 6670/2016 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED MAY 4, 2018 IN WPC 14858/2018 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED MAY 21, 2018 ISSUED BY THE SECOD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED JULY 17, 2018 IN WPC 22072/2018 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED NOVEMBER 23, 2018 OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED JANUARY 12, 2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

K.a.Mathew v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.a.Mathew 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Elsy Paul, Vs State of Kerala

M/S Sultan and Company, Vs State Bank of India

Kiran Kumar T.S., Vs Thiruvananthapuram District Co. Operative Bank

Mathews George, Vs District Collector and District Magistrate

Anil.B.Menon Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

Sherly Joseph, Vs the Authorised Officer