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.

K.T.Udayan. Vs. Chief Conservator of Forests.

K.T.Udayan. vs Chief Conservator of Forests.

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Jul 22, 2010
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/916913

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
Case Number
WP(C).No. 22704 of 2010(K)
Subject
Education

Case Summary

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

[MR. JUSTICE B.S. PATIL, J.] This MFA is filed U/S 173(1) of MV Act. against the Judgment and Award dated: 29/1 1/2006 passed in MVC No. 4382/2004 on the file of the XI Additional Judge. Court of Small Causes. Member. MACT, Metropolitan Area. Bangalore. (SCCH-12), partly allowing the claim petition for compensation ...

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

K.T.Udayan.

Advocate SMT.K.V.RESHMI, Adv.

Respondent

Chief Conservator of Forests.

Legal References

Reported In
ILR2010(4)Ker146

Excerpt

[mr. justice b.s. patil, j.] this mfa is filed u/s 173(1) of mv act. against the judgment and award dated: 29/1 1/2006 passed in mvc no. 4382/2004 on the file of the xi additional judge. court of small causes. member. mact, metropolitan area. bangalore. (scch-12), partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation with 12% interest.1. petitioner is working as deputy ranger, presently posted at malakkapara forest station. according to the petitioner based on ext.p1application, ext.p2 order has been issued, transferring and posting him to mudickal. complaint is that though ext.p2 order was issued as early as on 5.7.2010, so far he has not be relieved to enable the petitioner to join mudickal. 2. in view of the complaint thus raised by the petitioner this writ petition was adjourned with a direction to government pleader to obtain instruction. on instruction what the government pleader submits is that the substitute of the petitioner sri. mohandas has not so far reported for duty. it is stated that the petitioner holds charges of the station and therefore unless the substitute joins duty he cannot be relieved. 3. in the circumstances as pointed out by the government pleader, this court will not be justified in issuing a direction to relieve the petitioner as sought for. 4. therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing that on the substitute of the petitioner reported for duty, petitioner shall be relieved, in order to enable him to join at mudickal to which place he is transferred by ext.p2.

Full Judgment

1. Petitioner is working as Deputy Ranger, presently posted at Malakkapara Forest Station. According to the petitioner based on Ext.P1application, Ext.P2 order has been issued, transferring and posting him to Mudickal. Complaint is that though Ext.P2 order was issued as early as on 5.7.2010, so far he has not be relieved to enable the petitioner to join Mudickal.

2. In view of the complaint thus raised by the petitioner this writ petition was adjourned with a direction to Government Pleader to obtain instruction. On instruction what the Government Pleader submits is that the substitute of the petitioner Sri. Mohandas has not so far reported for duty. It is stated that the petitioner holds charges of the station and therefore unless the substitute joins duty he cannot be relieved.

3. In the circumstances as pointed out by the Government Pleader, this court will not be justified in issuing a direction to relieve the petitioner as sought for.

4. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing that on the substitute of the petitioner reported for duty, petitioner shall be relieved, in order to enable him to join at Mudickal to which place he is transferred by Ext.P2.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial