Dismissed

Ramya Krishna.K, v. District Project Manager

Kerala HC2 Aug 2019WP(C)/4341/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court unanimously dismissed a writ petition seeking direction to allot an Akshaya Centre to the petitioner. The Court held that inefficiency in running the unit necessitates a complaint to the statutory authority rather than automatic re-allotment.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; liberty to petitioner to approach the 3rd respondent if the unit is not run properly is left open.

Ramya Krishna.K, Vs District Project Manager — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.4341 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

RAMYA KRISHNA.K, AGED 30 YEARS W/O. SUBHALESH, SUBHALESH NIVAS, KOODALI, KANNUR 670 592

¶8

PHONE NO. 7025369633.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 DISTRICT PROJECT MANAGER, AKSHAYA PROJECT, KANNUR, RUBCO HOUSE, 5TH FLOOR, SOUTH BAZAR, KANNUR 670 002.

¶12

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KANNUR 670 001

¶13

3 MAHAROOF P.C, RESIDING AT RAHMATH MANZIL, MAYANMUKKU, KANHIRODE, KANNUR DIST 670 592.

¶14

SRI.B.VINOD,SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No.4341 of 2019

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

¶20

“i) issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or direction directing the 1^st respondent to allot the Akshaya Center at Kudukkimotta to the petitioner on the 3^rd respondent is not conducting the same.

¶21

ii) issue any other reliefs that his Hon'ble High Court may deem fit to grant in that facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶22

Apparently, petitioner was an applicant for Akshaya Centre at Kudukkimotta, Kannur District and the application submitted by the petitioner is produced as Ext.P1. However, the allotment was made to the 3^rd respondent on 19.8.2014. According to the petitioner, the Akshaya Centre is not being conducted by the 3^rd respondent in a proper and efficient manner and therefore, petitioner is entitled to run the same being an applicant at that point of time.

¶23

I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior Government Pleader and perused the pleadings and documents on record.

¶24

In my considered opinion, if the petitioner is of the opinion that the Akshaya Centre is not run by the 3^rd respondent

¶25

WP(C).No.4341 of 2019

¶26

¶27

efficiently and diligently, it is for the petitioner to make appropriate complaint before the appropriate statutory authority. I do not think, on that ground petitioner is entitled as of right to ask the respondents to run the unit by the petitioner, merely because petitioner was an applicant for the said unit in the year 2014. I do not think, there is any illegality or arbitrariness on the part of the respondents justifying interference of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition will stand dismissed, however, liberty of the petitioner against the 3^rd respondent if the unit is not run properly is left open.

Sd/

SHAJI P.CHALY

JUDGE

Jm/

WP(C).No.4341 of 2019

¶33

¶34

APPENDIX

¶35

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶36

EXHIBIT	P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE BY THE PETITIONER FO KUDUKKIMOTTA	APPLICATION SUBMITTED R AKSHAYA CENTER AT
EXHIBIT	P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AN APPLICATION SUBMI SHOWING THE RANK OF	REPLY DT. 15/7/2014 ON TTED BY THE PETITIONER THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT	P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ISSUED BY PRESIDENT	LETTER DT. 23/6/2014 MUNDERI GRAMA PANCHAYAT
EXHIBIT	P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR S SUBMITTED TO TRANSFE SISTER MUFEEDA.	LETTER ISSUED BY HOWING THE PETITION WAS R THE UNIT TO HIS
EXHIBIT	P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MUSTHAFFA C.V BEFORE AKSHAYA, KANNUR.	COMPLAINT FILED BY MR. THE PROJECT MANAGER,
EXHIBIT	P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE MANAGER WITH COPY TO DATED 15/06/2019.	REPRESENTATION DISTRICT PROJECT THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR

Ramya Krishna.K, v. District Project Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramya Krishna.K, v. District Project Manager

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

Nivin P.I. Vs the Commissioner for Entrance Examination

K.Suresh Kumar Vs the Registrar of Companies

Byjou T. Vs Bank of Baroda,Thalassery Branch

V.V. George Vs Sri. G.R.Gokul

Thrissur Public Library Vs Ranjith Kumar A.S

Thrissur Public Library Vs Ranjith Kumar A.S