Allowed

Babu P v. the District Telecom Committee

Kerala HC7 Oct 2021WP(C)/21441/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this fast-tracked writ petition, the Single Judge disposed of the matter by directing the District Telecom Committee to consider the petitioners' representation in its next meeting and produce the judgment for compliance.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to consider the representation submitted by petitioners and others in the next meeting of the respondent.

Babu P Vs the District Telecom Committee — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 7^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 15TH ASWINA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 21441 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 BABU P., AGED 68 YEARS, S/O.PACHU, VADAYIL, PALLANA, HASTHINAPURI, THRIKKUNNAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-690515.

¶8

2 RAVIDAS,

¶9

AGED 60 YEARS, S/O GOPALAN, PANAMTHANAM, PALLANA, THRIKKUNNAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-690515.

¶10

BY ADVS. BIJU BALAKRISHNAN V.S.RAKHEE K.J.GISHA AJMAL P.

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 THE DISTRICT TELECOM COMMITTEE, ALAPPUZHA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688001.

¶13

2 THE THRIKKUNNAPPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THRIKKUNNAPPUZHA, HARIPPAD, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-690515.

¶14

W.P.(C) No.21441 of 2021

¶15

..2..

¶16

3 THE SECRETARY, THRIKKUNNAPPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THRIKKUNNAPPUZHA, HARIPPAD, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-690515.

¶17

4 M/S. INDUS TOWERS LIMITED, 8TH FLOOR, VANKARATH TOWERS, NH BYPASS, PALARIVATTOM, COCHIN-682024, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, MR.RAJKUMAR PAVOTHIL-HEAD LEGAL, KERALA CIRCLE COMPRISING OF STATE OF KERALA.

¶18

BY SMT.PRINCY XAVIER, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

W.P.(C) No.21441 of 2021

¶21

..3..

¶22

W.P.(C)No.21441 of 2021

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

The grievance of the petitioners in the writ petition concerns the alleged delay on the part of the first respondent in considering and passing orders on Ext.P6 representation preferred by the petitioners and others before the first respondent.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Government Pleader.

¶26

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case especially the orders passed by this Court in similar and identical writ petitions, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the first respondent to consider Ext.P6 representation submitted by the petitioners and others in the next meeting of the first respondent itself. Ordered accordingly. The petitioners shall produce a copy of this judgment for compliance before the first respondent.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE

¶29

rkj

¶30

W.P.(C) No.21441 of 2021

¶31

..4..

¶32

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21441/2021

¶33

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶34

Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA AND BEFORE THE TELECOM DISTRICT MANAGER, ALAPPUZHA.

¶35

Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.08.2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶36

Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS ON 23.09.2021.

¶37

Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE AMRITHA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES DATED 27.12.2017.

¶38

Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF DISCHARGE SUMMARY ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF CARDIOTHORACIC AND VASCULAR SURGERY, MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOTTAYAM.

¶39

Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 28.09.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT INCLUDING THE OTHER IMMEDIATE RESIDENTS.

Babu P v. the District Telecom Committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babu P v. the District Telecom Committee

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

Fayas Saheer Vs the Tahsildar

V.K. Abdul Rahim Vs the Federal Bank Ltd.

K.P. Leena Vs Kerala Financial Enterprises Limited

Jaseela Asharaf Vs the Manager

Kizhuvilam Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No. 2405 Vs the Incident Commander & Tahsildar

Varghese .M.Mathai Vs M.v.Suresh Kumar