Kerala Court November 2009 Judgments

P.K. Gangadharan Nair, Advocate and Mrs. Mani G. Nair Vs. State of Ker ...

Court: Kerala

A.K. Basheer, J.1. This writ petition has been filed, professedly in public interest, seeking to quash Clause Nos. 13 and 22 in Ext.P4 order dated September 10, 2009 issued by the Health and Family Welfare (S) Department under the Government of Kerala. By the impugned clauses, the Government proposes to ban private practice for all doctors attached to Medical Colleges in the State with effect from October 1, 2009. Simultaneously, the working hours of teachers/doctors in Medical Colleges and hospitals have been rescheduled as from 9 A.M. to 4 P.M., instead of 8 A.M. to 1 P.M.2. It may at once be noticed that petitioners have filed this writ petition on September 17, 2009 even before the impugned clauses in Ext.P4 order are brought into force. In the said order, it has been clearly mentioned that Clauses 13 and 22 would come into force with effect from October 1, 2009. Obviously, therefore this writ petition is premature. Anyhow, we will refer to the primary contentions raised by the pet...

Selvy Valentrina Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT5

Kurian Joseph, J.1. Social reservation and special reservation are two different concepts in the matter of public employment. Both concepts are permitted under the Constitution of India. Article 16 deals with such reservations. The Article reads as follows:16. Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment.-- (1) There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.(2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of, any employment or office under the State.(3) Nothing in this Article shall prevent Parliament from making any law prescribing, in regard to a class or classes of employment or appointment to an office under the Government of, or any local or that authority within, a State or Union Territory, any requirement as to residence within that State or Union Territory ...

The Director, Govt. Ophthalmic Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram and Anothe ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are opposite parties 4 and 5, the Government Ophthalmic Hospital represented by its Director and the Health Secretary, Government of Kerala, who are under orders to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation with future interest at 16.5% and costs of Rs. 2,000/- in OP 513/97 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. The case of the complainant is that on 08-05-1996 he had watering, pain and redness to his left eye. He is a person making out his livelihood by running a small poultry farm. He immediately rushed to the Ophthalmic Hospital, Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram. He was attended by the second opposite party who gave him an injection and advised to use eye drops. He was examined by the opposite parties 2 and 3 on the succeeding dates ie, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th and 14th and the doctors advised him to put the eye drops prescribed earlier. On 13-05-1996 pain was so intense that he requested the doctors t...

Lal John Vs. C.R. Manoharan and ors.

Court: Kerala

Balakrishnan Nair, J.1. The third respondent in the Writ Petition is the appellant. The writ petitioner is the 1st respondent herein. The brief facts of the case are the following:2. The appellant was granted a regular permit on the route Ernakulam-Kottayam by the RTA, Kottayam, as per Ext. P2 proceedings dated 01.10.2004. The running time of the appellant's vehicle was 2 minutes per kilo metre. According to the appellant, all other Limited Stop Ordinary Services, similar to that of him, were granted running time @ 2 minutes per kilo metre. Feeling aggrieved by the grant of running time @ 2 minutes per kilo metre, the appellant filed RP No. 237/04 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal, by Annexure A1 order dated 06.11.2004, disposed of the revision, directing the Secretary, RTA, to consider whether all other services on the route are operating with the running time of 2 minutes per kilo metre and if the finding is in favour of the appellant, to grant him also the ...

Proprietor and Manager, Veega Holidays and Parks Private Ltd. Vs. Ranj ...

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The 1st opposite party in CC.43/08 in the file of CDRF, Wayanad is the appellant . The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- to the complainant towards compensation and cost. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he had booked the entry to the Amusement park run by the 1st opposite party for visit on 1.11.2007. It was the trip along with the workers of the shop owned by the complainant. Booking was made on 26.10.2007 through the 2nd opposite party. The day fixed for the journey happened to be a hartal declared by the BJP. On knowing about the hartal the complainant had contacted the opposite party and the opposite party confirmed the booking. The complainant hired 2 vehicles and reached the park at 5.30AM on 1.11.07. But the park was not opened for the entire day. He has claimed the rent of the vehicles amounting to Rs.14850/- incidental expenses Rs.10000/- Rs.25000/- as compensation. 3. It is the contention of the opposite part...

Raju and Others Vs. V.K.Varghese

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER By the order dated 10.12.04 in OP.297/03 the CDRF, Alappuzha has quashed the bill dated 24.3.03 and directed the opposite parties to refund the deposit amount remitted for the three phase connection and also restrained the opposite parties from levying any amount from the complainant during the disconnected period from 3.10.03. It is aggrieved by the said directions that the present appeal is filed by the opposite parties. 2. The brief facts of the case bereft of unnecessary details are that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties and that he was running an oil mill and from 1990 onwards it was functioning as a Match factory. The complainant has stopped the functioning of the Match factory in 1999 and on 31.3.99 he has submitted an application to perpetuate the single phase connection to light connection and dismantle the motor connection. Deposit amount was also requested to be refunded along with a prayer that the tariff from LT IV be ...

M/S.Benz Biwhellers Vs. Mr.K.K.Varkey and Others

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the 2nd opposite party/dealer in OP 75/04 in the file of CDRF, Idukki. The appellant is under orders to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.41,890/- towards compensation and the 1st opposite party/sub dealer is directed to pay Rs.4,000/-. The complainant has also been permitted to continue the ownership and possession of the vehicle. 2. The case of the complainant is that on 21/2/04 he purchased the Hero Honda Ambition Motor Cycle from the 1st opposite party. Subsequently it was found that the vehicle sold was not a new one. It was the vehicle manufactured in the year 2002 and he sought for the replacement of the vehicle or refund of the amount paid. The 1st opposite party contended that the vehicle was sold at 8 pm on 25/5/04. The vehicle was brought from the 2nd opposite party dealer on 25/2/04 and immediately the same was delivered to the complainants. The vehicle was brought by the road at 8 O clock in the night to the place o...

Sebastian Jose Vs. Indian Overseas Bank Ltd.

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT980

ORDERK. Surendra Mohan, J.1. The first respondent, Indian Overseas Bank Ltd. filed a suit O.S.77/2003 for the realisation of amounts due from the revision petitioner who was an employee of the Bank. The allegation is that the revision petitioner had during the course of his employment with the bank, committed misappropriation of funds of the Bank. On the very same allegations the C.B.I. conducted an investigation and launched prosecution proceedings against the revision petitioner, in which it is reported that he has been convicted. The misappropriation is stated to be to the tune of Rs. 75,63,295/-. The Bank initiated disciplinary proceedings against the revision petitioner and has terminated his services. The Bank also filed the suit from which the above revision arises for recovery of the amounts misappropriated by the revision petitioner.2. The petitioner is a subscriber to life insurance policies. The petitioner had kept these policies in his cabin, while he was working with the f...

Mohammed Ali Vs. Kulukkalloor Grama Panchayat

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT273

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.1. All the 16 seats to be filled up by direct election in terms of Section 6 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, for short, the 'PR Act', in the first respondent Grama Panchayat were filled up in 2005 and Abdul Kareem was elected the President.2. In terms of Section 162(1) of the P.R. Act, a Village Panchayat has three Standing Committees, for Finance; Development; and Welfare. Section 162(2) provides that the elected panchayat members, except the President and Vice-President, shall be elected as members in any of the Standing Committees and that the number of members elected to each Standing Committee shall, as far as possible, be equal. Section 162(6) provides that the President shall be an ex-officio member of all Standing Committees without the right to vote. It further provides that the Vice President shall be an ex-officio member and Chairman of the Standing Committee for Finance.3. The Finance, Development and Welfare Committees of the first res...

Rahumath Vs. Public Service Commission

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT127

C.T. Ravikumar, J.1. Both these appeals are filed by the same person against the common judgment in W.P.(C) Nos. 5400/07 and 17753/07. In fact, the appellant himself was the writ petitioner in both those Writ Petitions on the same subject matter. He was a selectee to the post of Assistant Grade-II under the Public Service Commission. The former Writ Petition was filed with the prayer to quash Order No. ESTT II(3) 6933/06/GW dated 23.1.07 of the PSC cancelling the appointment of the appellant as Assistant Grade-II in its office by invoking the powers under Rule 10(b)(iii) of Part-II of the K.S. & S.S.R.(Ext.P11 therein) and the latter Writ Petition was filed with the prayer to quash the further proceedings initiated pursuant to Ext.P 11 that culminated in Ext.P 12 order of cancellation of his very advice for recruitment to the said post.2. It was contended before the learned Single Judge that the Public Service Commission was incompetent to invoke the powers under Rule 10(b)(iii) of Par...