V.B.Sidil Kumar v. the Travancore Devaswom Board
Case brief
What is this about?
The petitioner sought a refund of alleged excess payment and extension of a lease. The court held that an uncommunicated but rejected representation must first be legally challenged before seeking refunds or extension in this petition. The petition was closed with an option to challenge the rejection.
What did the court decide?
The writ petition is closed. The petitioner is allowed liberty to challenge the order passed on the representation. The order is directed to be communicated within one week if not yet done.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
MONDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 24TH PHALGUNA, 1942
WP(C).No.4089 OF 2021(I)
PETITIONER:
V.B.SIDIL KUMAR, AGED 50 YEARS S/O. BALAN, VIPPATTU HOUSE, KALADY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,PIN-683 574
BY ADV. SRI.ARUN SAMUEL
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NANTHANCODE, KAWDIAR P.O., THIRUVNANTHAPURAM,PIN-695 003
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner can be entertained to claim refund of excess payment and extension of lease when the representation was rejected without prior communication of the order.
Whether the petitioner must first challenge the rejection of Ext.P5 before approaching the Court.
Whether the impugned representation should be communicated to the petitioner if it has not already been done.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
V.B.Sidil Kumar
- respondent
The Travancore Devaswom Board
- respondent
The Devaswom Commissioner
- respondent
The Assistant Devaswom Commissioner
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court