Partly allowed

P.K.Kannaninni v. Commissioner

Kerala HC7 Jan 2021WP(C)/205/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by a government inspector challenging his transfer from Palakkad to Thalassery division. The court directed the Commissioner to consider the petitioner's representation and pass orders within three weeks after hearing him.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.1 to consider Ext.P2 representation, take note of Ext.P3, and pass orders within three weeks after hearing the petitioner.

P.K.Kannaninni Vs Commissioner — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 17TH POUSHA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.205 OF 2021(A)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

P.K.KANNANUNNI AGED 50 YEARS

¶8

S/O.V.BALACHANDRAN NAIR,INSPECTOR GRADE-I,HR ANDCE(ADM)DEPARTMENT,PALAKKAD,RESIDING AT SRINIKETH,KIZHAKKENCHERRY,PALAKKAD-678684.

¶9

BY ADVS.

¶10

SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN SRI.SABU GEORGE SRI.MANU VYASAN PETER

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 COMMISSIONER

¶13

HR AND CE(ADM)DEPARTMENT,HOUSEFED COMPLEX,ERANHIPALAM.P.O, KOZHIKODE-673006.

¶14

2 N.GIRISH, AGE AND NAME OF THE FATHER NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,INSEPCTOR GRADE-I,HR ABND CE(ADM)DEPARTMENT,NEAR THIRUVANGAD TEMPLE, THALASSERY-670103.

¶15

SC,MDB- SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No.205 OF 2021(A)

¶18

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Dated this the 7th day of January 2021

¶21

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

¶22

“i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P1 to the extent it transfers the petitioner to Thalassery division and respondent No.2 to Palakkad division.

¶23

ii) issue a writ of mandamus or order or direction in the nature thereof directing respondent No.1 to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court.”

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶25

learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶26

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been transferred out from Palakkad division to Thalassery without any administrative exigencies informing such transfer and without any request being made by the 2^nd respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the transfer at this stage is not required and that the petitioner has approached the 1^st respondent preferring Ext.P2

¶27

WP(C).No.205 OF 2021(A)

¶28

¶29

representation. It is submitted that Ext.P3 request has also been forwarded by the petitioner's father, who is an Ex-service man.

¶30

In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that

¶31

the complaint raised by the petitioner against the transfer is liable to be considered by the 1^st respondent in accordance with law.

¶32

There will, accordingly, be a direction to the 1^st respondent to take up, consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 representation preferred by the petitioner, taking note of Ext.P3 as well. Orders shall be passed within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall also be put on notice and heard through any appropriate means including by video conferencing.

¶33

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN

JUDGE

SVP

WP(C).No.205 OF 2021(A)

¶39

¶40

APPENDIX

¶41

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶42

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.J1/2484/2017/M.D.B(3)DATED 31.12.2020 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1

¶43

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 01.01.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.1. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 01.01.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE FATHER OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.1.

P.K.Kannaninni v. Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.K.Kannaninni v. Commissioner

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

Jyothishkumaar Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.

Vijesh O.G. Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board

Sajeevan P. Vs State of Kerala

Mahendran T., Vs Fertilizers and Chemicals of Travancore Ltd.

Subha a., Vs the Director

Rasmi K.R. Vs the State of Kerala