Partly allowed

C.v.Abraham v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Feb 2019WP(C)/848/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed the refusal by the 1st respondent to reimburse the petitioner for irrigation pipeline repair work and directed the official to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders within three months, while dismissing the claim for immediate reimbursement without adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's representation within three months; Petitioner to deposit the claimed amount.

C.v.Abraham Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

THURSDAY ,THE 07TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 18TH MAGHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 848 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

C.V.ABRAHAM AGED 67 YEARS S/O.LATE VARGHESE, CHERUTHOTTATHIL HOUSE, THAMMANIMATTOM, RAMANGALAM.P.O.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN SMT.P.PARVATHY SRI.RAFEEK. V.K. SMT.SURYA P SHAJI SRI.U.M.HASSAN

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINOR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶11

2 SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION, CENTRAL CIRCLE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682030.

¶12

3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682030.

¶13

4 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION, ALUVA, THOTTAKKATTUKARA683108.

¶14

GP PRINCY XAVIER

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No. 848 of 2019 2

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

¶19

i. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to reimburse Rs.1,97,800 with accrued interest at the bank rate from April, 2012 till the date of payment being consideration for the repair and extension work of the pipeline in the Sreeboothapuram List Irrigation Scheme carried out by the petitioner as per the directions of the respondents 2 to 4. ii. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1^st respondent to consider and take a decision on Ext.P3 representation submitted by the petitioner within a time frame that may please be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

¶21

Government Pleader.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that highlighting the grievances of the petitioner, Ext.P3 representation has been preferred by the petitioner before the 1^st respondent.

¶23

Having heard the learned counsel on either side, I am of the opinion that the issue is to be considered by the 1^st respondent in accordance with law. There will accordingly, be a direction to the 1^st respondent to take up, consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3 representation preferred by the petitioner taking note of Ext.P1 judgment. Orders shall be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶24

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN

JUDGE

WP(C).No. 848 of 2019 3

¶30

APPENDIX

¶31

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶32

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.11.2016 IN O.S.NO.209/2013 ON THE FILES OF THE MUNSIFFS COURT, ALUVA. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 3.1.2019 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HON'BLE MINISTER FOR MINOR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 3.1.2019 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶33

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL

C.v.Abraham v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.v.Abraham 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

Master Navas, Vs the Director of Public Instructions

Abdul Nazar P. Vs the Superintending Engineer

Farhan Fazal Vs Central Board of Secondary Education

Sindhu L. Vs State of Kerala

Divya Vs State of Kerala

Rekha N.R. Vs N.R. Mallika