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.

Jose Thomas Vs. Union of India

Jose Thomas vs Union of India

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Aug 07, 2014
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1160754

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
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jose Thomas

Respondent

Union of India

Advocate Sri. P.Vijayaraghavan

Excerpt

.....on 17th june 2014 as well as on 25th july 2014 to take steps for appointment of assistant public prosecutors in 27 temporary judicial first class magistrates' courts as well as in five magistrates' courts in manjeri judicial district.3. an additional statement on behalf of the 2nd respondent has been filed on 4th august 2014 where government orders dated 26th july 2014 was brought on record. it has been stated by the learned state attorney that appointment of 24 assistant public prosecutors have been made, indicating their place of posting. hence the grievance which has been raised by the petitioner has been complied with. he submitted that in manjeri judicial district w.p. c. no. 15242 of 2014 3 also the assistant public prosecutors have been posted, except one court at ponnani, for which steps shall be taken at an early date.4. in view of the facts which are brought on record, the grievances raised by the petitioner are substantially complied with by the state. we see no reason to continue the proceedings any further and the writ petition is closed as aforesaid.5. we further observe that the state shall be vigilant with regard to appointment of asst. public prosecutors in courts where there is any vacancy or where there are no posting of assistant public prosecutors. sd/- ashok bhushan , ag. chief justice sd/- a.m. shaffique, judge ani/ /truecopy/ p.s.tojudge

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE THE AG.CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE THURSDAY, THE7H DAY OF AUGUST201416TH SRAVANA, 1936 WP(C).No. 15242 of 2014 (R) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ----------- JOSE THOMAS S/O. THOMAS, AGED42YEARS, NELLIKAL HOUSE KUTHUKUZHY P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM -686 691. BY ADVS.SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY SRI.R.SANJITH RESPONDENT(S): ------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE, SHASTRI BHAVAN NEW DELHI - 110 001.

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.

3. HIGH COURT OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL, ERNAKULAM.

4. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION, DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF PROSECUTION, MARKET ROAD ERNAKULAM -682 018. STATE ATTORNEY SRI. P. VIJAYARAGHAVAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON0708-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 15242 of 2014 (R) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS -------------------- EXHIBIT-P1-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER

DATED1305/2014 BEARING NO. G.O(MS) 94/2014/HOME EXHIBIT-P2-TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED3105/2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. ASHOK BHUSHAN , Ag. CJ, & A.M. SHAFFIQUEJ.

--------------------------------- W.P. C. No. 15242 of 2014 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 7th August, 2014 JUDGMENT

Ashok Bhushan, Ag.CJ.

Heard Sri.S.P. Chaly, learned counsel for the petitioner as well the State Attorney Sri. P.Vijayaraghavan appearing for respondents.

2. By this public interest litigation, the petitioner who is an advocate practicing at Ernakulam, Kothamangalam and other Centers in Ernakulam District, has prayed for a mandamus commanding respondents 2 to 4 to implement Ext. P1 and to ensure that Assistant Public Prosecutors having independent charge are appointed in all the 27 proposed Temporary Judicial First Class Magistrate Courts in the District at different locations as detailed in the order. The attempt of W.P. C. No. 15242 of 2014 2 the petitioner is that inspite of establishment of the courts there were no Assistant Public Prosecutors appointed. Further grievance was raised that in five Courts in Manjeri Judicial District, there are no Assistant Public Prosecutors, due to which the work is suffering and witnesses are facing lot of difficulties and inspite of their presence before court, their statements could not be recorded. This Court passed orders on 17th June 2014 as well as on 25th July 2014 to take steps for appointment of Assistant Public Prosecutors in 27 Temporary Judicial First Class Magistrates' Courts as well as in five Magistrates' Courts in Manjeri judicial district.

3. An additional statement on behalf of the 2nd respondent has been filed on 4th August 2014 where Government Orders dated 26th July 2014 was brought on record. It has been stated by the learned State Attorney that appointment of 24 Assistant Public Prosecutors have been made, indicating their place of posting. Hence the grievance which has been raised by the petitioner has been complied with. He submitted that in Manjeri Judicial District W.P. C. No. 15242 of 2014 3 also the Assistant Public Prosecutors have been posted, except one Court at Ponnani, for which steps shall be taken at an early date.

4. In view of the facts which are brought on record, the grievances raised by the petitioner are substantially complied with by the State. We see no reason to continue the proceedings any further and the Writ Petition is closed as aforesaid.

5. We further observe that the State shall be vigilant with regard to appointment of Asst. Public Prosecutors in courts where there is any vacancy or where there are no posting of Assistant Public Prosecutors. Sd/- ASHOK BHUSHAN , Ag. CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE ani/ /truecopy/ P.S.ToJudge

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial