Jose Antony v. Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayath
Case brief
What is this about?
Petitioner approached Court for compensation after ducks were killed by stray dogs because Panchayat refused action due to lack of livestock license. Court held factual dispute is not suitable for writ and closed petition.
What did the court decide?
Writ petition closed.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 8607 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
JOSE ANTONY, AGED 57 YEARS S/O.ANTONY, MADATHIPARAMBIL, PAZHANGANADU, KIZHAKKAMBALAM VILLAGE, KOCHI - 683 562.
BY ADVS. K.SHAJI ANTONY LETHA.M.S M.J.SAJITHA K.K.SUBITHA
RESPONDENTS:
1 KIZHAKKAMBALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY - 683 562. 2 PANCHAYATH SECRETARY KIZHAKKAMBALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KIZHAKKABALAM - 683 562. 3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERNAKULAM - 682 030. 4 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. BY ADV SHRI.ABRAHAM P.MEACHINKARA, SC, KIZHAKKAMBALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT
OTHER PRESENT:
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ court can decide a factual dispute regarding compensation for livestock loss without a license.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
JOSE ANTONY
- respondent
KIZHAKKAMBALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH
- respondent
SECRETARY, KIZHAKKAMBALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH
- respondent
DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERNAKULAM
- respondent
STATE OF KERALA
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court