Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

V.B. Rajan Vs. State of Kerala

V.B. Rajan vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jan 31, 2013
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1014513

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

V.B. Rajan

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....respondents 2 and 3 to conduct an enquiry on ext. p8 and p9 and take appropriate action against the 4th respondent to restrain them from using the name of the petitioner's union namely kerala journalists union; ii) issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents 2 and 3 to ensure that the 4th respondent and others are not using the name of the petitioner's union namely kerala journalists union and collecting funds from the public and also conducting meetings in the name of petitioner's union; iii) to declare that 4th respondent is not entitled to use the name of the petitioner's union namely kerala journalists union; iv) issue such other reliefs that this hon'ble court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.2. going by the pleadings and proceedings, this court finds that the petitioner is complaining against the deeds and misdeeds stated as pursued by the 4th respondent, wrongly making use of the name/label of the petitioner, which, according w.p.(c) no. 30701 o”2. to the petitioner, is not correct or proper. this court finds that the dispute, if at all any is not liable to be entertained by this court invoking the discretionary jurisdiction under article 226 and the remedy of the petitioner lies elsewhere. interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the rights and liberties to pursue the matter before other appropriate forum. p.r. ramachandra menon, (judge) sp

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2013 11TH MAGHA 193 WP(C).No. 30701 of 2012 (K) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- V.B. RAJAN, AGED 4 YEARS, S/O.BHARATHAN, VALIYATHARA HOUSE, ERATTAYAR P.O, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PRESIDENT, KERALA JOURNALIST UNION (KJU), STATE UNIT OF INDIAN JOURNALIST UNION, PAZHUNTHARA MATHILAKAM P.O, THRISSUR. BY ADVS.SRI.A.X.VARGHESE, SRI.A.V.JOJO. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM”

001.

2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM”

001.

3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR”

001.

4. C.V MITHRAN, CHETTZHATH HOUSE, EDAVILANGU P.O, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT”

671. R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. S. JAMAL. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Prv. W.P.(C). NO.30701/2012-K: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED NIL. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 27 11-2012. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE SOUVENIOR OF INDIAN JOURNALIST UNION PUBLISHED IN THE YEAR NOVEMBER 2011 EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER REPORT DATED 16 10-2012 IN MALAYALA MANORAMA. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED ON NOVEMBER 201 . EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE DATED 20 10-2012. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Prv. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.

------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No. 30701 of 2012 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of January, 2013. JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers: i) Issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents 2 and 3 to conduct an enquiry on Ext. P8 and P9 and take appropriate action against the 4th respondent to restrain them from using the name of the petitioner's Union namely Kerala Journalists Union; ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents 2 and 3 to ensure that the 4th respondent and others are not using the name of the petitioner's Union namely Kerala Journalists Union and collecting funds from the public and also conducting meetings in the name of petitioner's Union; iii) To declare that 4th respondent is not entitled to use the name of the petitioner's Union namely Kerala Journalists Union; iv) Issue such other reliefs that this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. Going by the pleadings and proceedings, this Court finds that the petitioner is complaining against the deeds and misdeeds stated as pursued by the 4th respondent, wrongly making use of the name/label of the petitioner, which, according W.P.(C) No. 30701 o”

2. to the petitioner, is not correct or proper. This Court finds that the dispute, if at all any is not liable to be entertained by this Court invoking the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 and the remedy of the petitioner lies elsewhere. Interference is declined and the writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the rights and liberties to pursue the matter before other appropriate forum. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE) sp

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial