Disposed

Ranii v. Shajjy Vettooran v Union of India

Kerala HC4 Oct 2021WP(C)/20905/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by a notary against delay in considering her application for renewal of appointment. Court directed the competent authority to decide the pending application within two months, allowing the petitioner to be heard first.

What did the court decide?

Directed the competent authority to decide the petitioner's application for renewal of Notary appointment within two months after hearing her.

Ranii v Shajjy Vettooran Vs Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 12TH ASWINA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 20905 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

RANII V SHAJJY VETTOORAN, AGED 54 YEARS, W/O. LATE SHAJJY VETTOORAN, SHAYAM NIVAS, BURMA ROAD, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O, KUMARAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 695 011

¶8

BY ADV BABY MATHEW

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE, NEW DELHI 110 001

¶11

2 JOINT SECRETARY AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, SHASTRI BHAVAN, MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS (NOTARY CELL), NEW DELHI 110 001

¶12

SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR ASG

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

¶15

W.P. (C) No.20905 of 2021

¶16

W.P. (C) No.20905 of 2021

¶17

J U D G M E N T

¶18

Petitioner was appointed as a Notary by the Government of India for a period of five years with effect from 17.07.2013. Ext.P3 is the application preferred by the petitioner for renewal of the term of appointment. As there was some delay in the matter of preferri ng Ext.P3 application, the petitioner has explained the delay in Ext.P4 affidavit filed before the competent authority. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the delay on the part of the respondents in considering Ext.P3 application.

¶19

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Central Government Counsel.

¶20

It is seen that an identical matter has been disposed of by this court in terms of Ext.P6 judgment. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the competent authority of the first respondent to take a decision on Ext.P3 application preferred by the petitioner, if the same is received and pending, within two months, having regard to

¶21

¶22

W.P. (C) No.20905 of 2021

¶23

Ext.P6 judgment. The petitioner shall be afforded an opportunity of hearing before orders are passed as directed above. The hearing ordered in terms of this judgment can be held through video conferencing.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶26

YKB

¶27

¶28

W.P. (C) No.20905 of 2021

¶29

¶30

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶31

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF PRACTICE DATED 17-07-2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶32

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY ISSUED FROM ORTHO ONE, ORTHOPEDIC SPECIALTY CENTRE

¶33

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF CERTIFICATE OF PRACTICE AS NOTARY DATED 12-10-2018

¶34

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 28-112018 Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF MR RAVINDRAN SHAJJY VETTOORAN DATED 0702-2019 Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15-092015 IN WPC 27744/15

Ranii v. Shajjy Vettooran v Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranii v. Shajjy Vettooran v Union of India

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

Robin. C.F Vs the State of Kerala

Asmila Vs District Supply Officer-Wayanad

Visakh .M.R., Vs Venkitesapathi

Akhil George Vs State of Kerala

Amrutha. S Vs State of Kerala

Zircar Refractories Limited Vs Union of India