Dismissed

T.a.Abdul Rahiman v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Feb 2021WP(C)/1928/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner challenged a communication from the respondent Director dismissing his request for an extension of time to complete a work, arguing the direction to consider the request was ignored. The court held the petitioner's contentions unsustainable and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the Director's letter was dismissed.

T.a.Abdul Rahiman Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 22ND MAGHA,1942

¶5

WP(C).No.1928 OF 2021(M)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

T.A.ABDUL RAHIMAN, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O.T.A.MAHIN HAJI, 'JASMIN' HOUSE, CHATTANCHAL, THEKKIL P.O., KASARAGOD – 671 541.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.S.SHYAM KUMAR

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA - REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695 001.

¶11

2 THE DIRECTOR, INLAND NAVIGATION DIRECTORATE, KALLADA HOUSE, ASHRAMAM P.O – 691 001, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADV. SMT.VINITHA.B, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No.1928 OF 2021(M)

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P6 order on the ground that the direction of this Court to 2^nd respondent to consider the request for extension of time contained in his representation was not considered.

¶18

2. The learned Government Pleader on instructions submits that by letter dated 10.12.2020 itself, petitioner was informed by the Director that the question of extension does not arise since the original time granted for completion of the work is not yet over. It was also stated that since

¶19

the work is progressing, there is every possibility of completing the same within the scheduled time.

¶20

In the said circumstances, the

¶21

WP(C).No.1928 OF 2021(M)

¶22

¶23

contentions raised by the petitioner are unsustainable.

¶24

Therefore the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/P.V.ASHA JUDGE ww

¶25

WP(C).No.1928 OF 2021(M)

¶26

¶27

APPENDIX

¶28

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶29

EXHIBIT	P1 TRUE COPY EXECUTED B RESPONDENT	OF THE ETWEEN .	AGRE THE	EMENT DATED 29.05.2020 PETITIONER AND THE 2ND
EXHIBIT	P2 TRUE COPY BY THE PET THE 2ND RE	OF THE ITIONE SPONDEN	RE R DA T.	PRESENTATION SUBMITTED TED 23.07.2020 BEFORE
EXHIBIT	P3 TRUE COPY PETITIONER	OF THE BEFORE	REPR THE	ESENTATION MADE BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P4 TRUE COPY 20.11.2020 BEFORE THE	OF SUBMI 2ND RE	THE TTED SPON	REPRESENTATION DATED BY THE PETITIONER DENT.
EXHIBIT	P5 TRUE COPY IN W.P.(C)	OF THE NO.2312	JUD 5 OF	GMENT DATED 24.11.2020 2020.
EXHIBIT	P6 TRUE COPY 10.12.2020	OF ISSUED	THE BY	COMMUNICATION DATED THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

T.a.Abdul Rahiman v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.a.Abdul Rahiman 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

K.v.Anilkumar Vs the General Manager

Vivek Krishnamoorthy Vs the Kerala Real Estate Regulatory Authority

Anzarudeen Vs the Chief Executive Officer

Sri.Prajaraj.D, Vs Chief Engineer (Buildings)

M and T Constructions Vs State of Kerala

Shiv Kumar Vs Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha