Disposed

Kamalam v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Dec 2021WP(C)/6673/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala dismissed this writ petition filed by members of a fishermen cooperative society. The Court observed that despite pending from 2013, service to key respondents remained incomplete. No representation was received from the petitioners. The Court held the petition need not be retained and closed it, directing petitioners to approach appropriate authorities if grievances survive.

What the court decided

AI extract

Kamalam Vs State of Kerala — Cooperative Societies | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

WP(C) NO. 6673 OF 2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶6

MONDAY, THE 6^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 6673 OF 2013

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

1 KAMALAM AGED 58 YEARS CHUKKASSERIL HOUSE, BIYYAM.P.O., PONNANI, PIN-679 576.

¶9

2 SAROJINI AGED 65 YEARS VELLANI HOUSE, BIYYAM.P.O., PONNANI, PIN-679 576.

¶10

3 HARIDASAN AGED 42 YEARS EANDI HOUSE, BIYYAM.P.O., PONNANI, PIN-679 576.

¶11

4 SAROJINI AGED 65 YEARS PELI HOUSE, BIYYAM.P.O., PONNANI, PIN-679 576.

¶12

5 SUBRAMONIAN AGED 45 YEARS VADAKKEMURI HOUSE, BIYYAM.P.O., PONNANI, PIN-679 576.

¶13

BY ADVS. SRI.P.V.BIJUMON SMT.R.LEELA

¶14

RESPONDENT/S:

¶15

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FISHERMEN & PORTS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶16

2 PORT CONSERVATOR

¶17

WP(C) NO. 6673 OF 2013

¶18

¶19

PORT CONSERVATOR'S OFFICE, PONNANI-679 583.

¶20

3 DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. PIN-676 505.

¶21

4 KHADEEJA, AGED 32 YEARS W/O.BABU, SECRETARY, PUZHAMBRAM HARIJAN FISHERMEN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, PUZHAMBRAM, PONNANI. PIN-679 577.

¶22

5 V.AYYAPPAN AGED 68 YEARS PRESIDENT, PUZHAMBRAM HARIJAN FISHERMEN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, PUZHAMBRAM, PONNANI. PIN-679 577.

¶23

6 NARAYANAN

¶24

AGED 45 YEARS

¶25

MEMBER, PUZHAMBRAM HARIJAN FISHERMEN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, PUZHAMBRAM, PONNANI. PIN-679 577.

¶26

7 SIVARAMAN AGED 40 YEARS

¶27

MEMBER, PUZHAMBRAM HARIJAN FISHERMEN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, PUZHAMBRAM, PONNANI. PIN-679 577.

¶28

SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, GP

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

WP(C) NO. 6673 OF 2013

¶31

¶32

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J

¶33

W.P.(C.) No. 6673 of 2013

¶34

Dated this the 6^th day of December, 2021

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :

¶37

“(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1^st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders in Ext.P4 representation. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents to consider and pass appropriate orders in Exts.P3 and P2 representations.

¶38

(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1^st respondent to take appropriate action against the respondents 4 to 7 for violating the Government directions in Ext.P1 and further to ensure that directions in Ext.P1 are strictly followed by the respondents 4 to 7.

¶39

(iv) Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶40

The petitioners are members of Puzhambram Harijan Fishermen (Matsyathozhilali) Co-operative Society. The

¶41

grievance of the petitioners is that respondent Nos. 4 to 7, who are the office bearers of the Society are taking advantage of Ext.P1 Government Order and without convening any meeting and by misusing their status in the Society, allowed some

¶42

WP(C) NO. 6673 OF 2013

¶43

¶44

private persons to dredge soil under the banner of the Society, which according to the petitioners is illegal. Hence, this writ petition is filed. This writ petition is pending from 2013 onwards. Even though notice was issued to respondent Nos.2 to 7, service to respondent No.4 is not complete. There is no representation for the petitioners also. I think this writ petition need not be retained. If there is any surviving grievance to the petitioners, the petitioners are free to approach the appropriate authority in accordance to law.

¶45

With this observation, this writ petition is closed.

¶46

JUDGE

¶47

SKS

¶48

WP(C) NO. 6673 OF 2013

¶49

¶50

APPENDIX

¶51

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS)NO.17/2010/F & PD DATED 18.3.2010 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER'S BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 6.3.2013 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL

Kamalam v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Kamalam v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Asiya Latheef Vs State of Kerala

S.Kuttappan Chettiar Vs State of Kerala

Majestic Constructions Vs State of Kerala

Kandan Kulangara Mehaboob Vs State of Kerala

K.C.Abdul Khader Vs Karattupalli Muslim Jama-Ath

Minikutty.S. Vs the Kerala State Information Technology