Disposed

T.Prakashan v. the Superintending Engineer

Kerala HC5 Mar 2020WP(C)/546/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala issued a direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation for releasing the FD amount deposited as surety. The respondent was directed to pass appropriate orders within two months with notice to the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders within two months with notice to the petitioner.

T.Prakashan Vs the Superintending… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.546 OF 2020(P)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

T.PRAKASHAN AGED 45 YEARS MANGALLESSERY, GANDHIPURAM, SREEKARYAM P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST, PIN-695 017.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.M.UNNI NAMBOODIRI

¶9

RESPONDENT:

¶10

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, BUILDINGS SOUTH CIRCLE, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDINGS, MUSEUM P.O.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-695 003.

¶11

GP. SMT. VINITHA B

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

WP(C).No.546 OF 2020(P)

¶14

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

Dated this the 5th day of March 2020

¶17

This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer:

¶18

“Issue a direction to the respondents to consider the representation (Ext.P4) submitted by the petitioner on 30/11/2019 for releasing the FD amount deposited by the petitioner with the respondent as surety within such time prescribed by this Hon'ble Court.”

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

¶20

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Ext.P4 representation has been preferred by the petitioner before the respondent and that the same is liable to be considered and disposed of without delay.

¶21

In the above view of the matter, there will be a direction to the respondent to take up, consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4 representation preferred by the petitioner with notice to the petitioner also, within a period of two

¶22

WP(C).No.546 OF 2020(P)

¶23

¶24

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶25

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN

JUDGE

SVP

WP(C).No.546 OF 2020(P)

¶31

¶32

APPENDIX

¶33

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶34

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONTRACT LICENSE OF THE PETITIONER LICENSE NO 2/BSC/2007-2008 RENEWED DATED 31.3.2017 EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT REGARDING THE RENEWAL OF LICENSE OF THE PETITIONER DATED 16.2.2018

¶35

EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT REGARDING THE RELEASE OF THE SURETY DEPOSIT AMOUNT OF THE PETITIONER DATED 15.10.2019

¶36

EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT FOR RELEASING HIS SURETY FD AMOUNT DEPOSITED DATED 30.11.2019

T.Prakashan v. the Superintending Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Prakashan v. the Superintending Engineer

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

Goutham P.S Vs the Central Board Secondary Education

Pooja Nair Vs Union of India

Muraleedharan Vs State of Kerala

Murali P.N. Vs Central Board of Secondry Education

The Chairman, Vs Union of India

Basheer Vs Union of India