Writ petition seeking quo warranto against the Expert Member of the District Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Kannur, was in the defect list for incomplete service and its prayers appeared infructuous; the court dismissed it as infructuous.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 15TH JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 3896 OF 2018
PETITIONER:
M.K.BABU
AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. M.P KANNAN, MARUTHULLA PARAMBIL HOUSE, KUNDUTHODE P.O, KAVILUMPARA VIA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673 513.
BY ADVS. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA SRI.P.T.ABHILASH
RESPONDENTS:
KERALA, PALLIMUKKU, PETTAH P.O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 024, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY.
WP(C) NO.3896 OF 2018
2
BY ADVS.
SHRI.HARIDAS P.NAIR, CGC SRI. B.S. SYAMANTAK, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.3896 OF 2018
3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
W.P.(C) No.3896 of 2018
Dated this the 05th day of June, 2024
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed with the following
prayers:
“i. issue a writ of quo-warranto calling upon the respondents 1, 2, 4 and 5 to explain how the 3rd respondent was entitled to function as Member of District Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (DEIAA) of Kannur district;
ii. issue a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate order or direction restraining/injuncting the 3rd respondent from functioning as Expert Member of the 5th respondent (District Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (DEIAA) of Kannur district) with immediate effect;
iii. issue such other writ, order or direction
4
WP(C) NO.3896 OF 2018
which may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.” SIC
because service to the 3rd respondent is not complete.
Probably, the prayers in this writ petition might have
been infructuous. In such circumstances, this writ
petition need not be retained here.
Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed as
infructuous.
Sd/-
nvj
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Was the 3rd respondent entitled to function as Expert Member of the DEIAA, Kannur?
M.K.Babu
Union of India
Government of Kerala
O. Jayarajan
State Environment Impact Assessment Authority Kerala
District Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (DEIAA), Kannur District
P.V.Kunhikrishnan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
