Chellammal vs Johnson

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jul 18, 2024

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1295785

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1295785
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Anil K.Narendran,Honourable Mr. Justice Harisankar V. Menon
Decided On: Jul 18, 2024
Case Number: WA/1996/2016

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Chellammal

Respondent

Johnson

Excerpt

.....s/o r. thirumoorthi, ayyappankunnu kalam, nattukal post, kozhinjampara, palakkad-678 554. by adv.sri.o.d.sivadas respondents: 1 johnson, s/o.geroge, chembanal house, chuvannamannu, thrissur-680 001. 2 the secretary, the regional transport authority, palakkad-678 001. other present: sr. gp- sri. b. unnikrishna kaimal this writ appeal having come up for admission on 18.07.2024, the court on the same day delivered the following:judgmentharisankar v. menon, j.the 2nd respondent in wp(c) no.26427 of 2016 is the appellant in this writ appeal filed under section 5 of the kerala high court act.2. the 1st respondent herein had filed wp(c) no.26427 of 2016 before this court, seeking for a direction to the 2 nd respondent herein to consider and pass orders on ext.p5 representation preferred by the 1st respondent herein. by the impugned judgment, this court had issued a direction to the 2 ndrespondent herein, to consider and dispose of ext.p5 representation, if possible in the next timing conference scheduled, and at any rate, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. the 2nd respondent in the writ petition has preferred this appeal mainly contending that the writ petition has been disposed of without notice and without hearing her.3. we have heard the learned counsel appearing for theappellant in this appeal. he has pointed out that the vehicle concerned has been already transferred to another person and therefore, nothing further survives for consideration in this appeal. recording the above submission by the learned counsel for the appellant, this appeal is closed. anil k.narendran harisankar v. menon ln

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V.MENON THURSDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 27TH ASHADHA, 1946 WA NO. 1996 OF 2016 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.08.2016 IN WPC NO.26427 OF 2016 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA ----- APPELLANT/S: CHELLAMMAL, W/O.JAWAHAR, KARPAKA ILLAM, KARUVAPPARA, KOZHINJAMPARA, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD 678 101, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY T. VIJAYAKUMAR, S/O R. THIRUMOORTHI, AYYAPPANKUNNU KALAM, NATTUKAL POST, KOZHINJAMPARA, PALAKKAD-678 554. BY ADV.SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENTS: 1 JOHNSON, S/O.GEROGE, CHEMBANAL HOUSE, CHUVANNAMANNU, THRISSUR-680 001. 2 THE SECRETARY, THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PALAKKAD-678 001. OTHER PRESENT: SR. GP- SRI. B. UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Harisankar V. Menon, J.

The 2nd respondent in WP(C) No.26427 of 2016 is the appellant in this writ appeal filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act.

2. The 1st respondent herein had filed WP(C) No.26427 of 2016 before this Court, seeking for a direction to the 2 nd respondent herein to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 representation preferred by the 1st respondent herein. By the impugned judgment, this Court had issued a direction to the 2 nd

respondent herein, to consider and dispose of Ext.P5 representation, if possible in the next timing conference scheduled, and at any rate, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The 2nd respondent in the writ petition has preferred this appeal mainly contending that the writ petition has been disposed of without notice and without hearing her.

3. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the

appellant in this appeal. He has pointed out that the vehicle concerned has been already transferred to another person and therefore, nothing further survives for consideration in this appeal. Recording the above submission by the learned counsel for the appellant, this appeal is closed. ANIL K.NARENDRAN HARISANKAR V. MENON ln

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2024 Same Parties Chellammal vs Johnson Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice Anil K.Narendran,Honourable Mr. Justic...