Kerala Court February 2010 Judgments

Mathew Thomas Panicker Vs. Mavelikkara Municipality

Court: Kerala

Antony Dominic, J.1. The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P1 notice by which the Municipality has proposed auction of meat stalls and the auction is scheduled to take place tomorrow. From Ext.P1 notice itself, it is evident that the notice was published as early as on 12/1/2010 and at this last minute, the writ petition is filed seeking to interdict the Municipality from going ahead with the auction.2. Apart from the point of delay in approaching this Court, on merits also, I am not satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for interference. The main contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that the Municipality is going ahead with the auction without establishing a slaughter house of its own as directed by this Court in Mathew v. Valakom Grama Panchayat 2009 (3) KLT 572. However, a reading of Ext.P1, the auction notice itself show that the Municipality has made sufficient safeguards, in as much as it is provided that until the slaughter house of the ...

B. Gopalakrishna Pillai Vs. Kollam Corporation

Court: Kerala

Antony Dominic, J.1. Heard the petitioner, Standing Counsel for the Municipality and the additional 2nd respondent.2. The grievance of the petitioner is against Ext.P3, a notice issued by the Municipality requiring the petitioner to remove septic tank, as it was against the provisions contained in Rule 104 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules. The contention raised by the petitioner is that Rule 104 came into force only with effect from 22.2.2010 whereas the building in question was completed and was occupied as early as in 1996. It is stated that since the Rule is prospective in nature, the said Rule can have no relevance, in so far as the building and septic tank constructed in 1996 are concerned. If the petitioner has this objection against Ext.P3, the proper course to be adopted is to file an objection to Ext.P3 before the Municipality itself and it is for the Municipality to decide the matter.Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition leaving it open to the petitioner to file...

Centre of Earth Science Studies Vs. Anson Sebastian

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT233

C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J.1. The appellant is a State Government agency engaged in studies on earth science. The first respondent, a Scientist working with the appellant applied to the Information Officer of the appellant for getting information pertaining to certain documents relating to domestic enquiry against another employee and also for getting entries in the Confidential Reports of six other employees of the appellant. However, the Information Officer rejected the first respondent's application. Consequent upon which the first respondent filed appeals against the orders of the Information Officer before the State Information Commission, which allowed the appeals directing the appellant to give all the details and copies of documents asked for by the first respondent. The appellant filed various Writ Petitions challenging the orders of the State Information Commission, which were rejected by the learned Single Judge. Even though five Writ Petitions were filed by the appellant bef...

Musthafa Hudavi, S/O. Kunhammad, Manager Vs. State of Kerala,

Court: Kerala

Antony Dominic, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner's grievance is mainly against Ext.P4 order passed by the Panchayat rejecting the application made by him for a building permit, which is stated to be for the purpose of construction of a school building. According to the petitioner, the property in question was acquired as per Ext.P1 document, which is stated to have been corrected by Ext.P6.2. It is stated that he made application for building permit. The lay out was approved by the Town Planner as per Ext.P3. However, the application for building permit was rejected by Ext.P4 order passed by the Panchayat relying on certain conditions of Ext.P3 order of the Town Planner. Thereupon, the petitioner moved the Town Planner himself and got Ext.P3 modified by Ext.P5 with a further direction to the Panchayat to consider the application made by him in the light of Ext.P5.3. When the writ petition was taken up for hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner prays for a direction t...

M.U. Shanavas S/O. Unneenkutty Vs. State of Kerala,

Court: Kerala

Antony Dominic, J.1. The petitioner is the registered owner of an autorickshaw bearing Regn. No. KL-10 AB 6760.2. On 11/04/2009, the Assistant Excise Inspector and party stopped the vehicle and on search, recovered 16.5 litres of IMFL from the vehicle owned and driven by the petitioner along with a passenger. Thereupon proceedings were initiated under Section 67 of the Abkari Act for confiscation of the vehicle. The petitioner was issued notice and was heard and Ex.P2 order was passed by the 3rd respondent confiscating the vehicle. Against Ext.P2, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent. Appeal was considered and rejected by Ext.P3 order.3. During the pendency of the proceedings, it would appear that the vehicle was temporarily released to the petitioner on Bank Guarantee. In view of Exts.P2 & P3, the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nilamboor, before whom the criminal case is pending, has by Ext.P4 required the petitioner to produce the vehicle. It is in these circums...

P. Gopinathan Vs. Alappat Fashion Jewellary, Kochi

Court: Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram

SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated 30.01.2006 in C.C.No.534/05 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam. The complaint was filed by the appellant herein as complainant against the respondent as opposite parties. The case of the complainant is that on 17.10.2005 he had purchased some gold ornaments from the opposite party. Even though there was an offer of Rs.300/- discount for the purchase of every sovereign of gold from the opposite party till 31.10.2005, they did not give that discount and have charged excess amount as making charges. The complainant had also exchanged 100 gms of gold ornaments, but the weight was taken only as 96.13 gms for which the prevailing price was not given. More over the complainant was not informed about the value addition charges at the time of selecting the ornaments. The complainant asked to return the gold which he had given but the opposite party told that the same was melted and could not be returned. Hence al...

Avivyan K.S. Vs. the Kerala State Road Transport,

Court: Kerala

Antony Dominic, J.1. Petitioner's grievance is against Ext.P3 order by which he is transferred and posted to Thiruvananthapuram depot of the KSRTC.2. Petitioner is a driver who was posted at the Angamaly Station of the KSRTC. According to the petitioner, on 16.11.2009 an incident happened which irritated the respondents 3 and 4. It is stated that the petitioner was discharging duties thereafter and that on 11.1.2010 he felt giddiness and as a result of which he had to go to hospital. It is stated that on 13.1.2010 the 4th respondent summoned the petitioner for an enquiry and called upon the petitioner to explain why he did not discharge duty on 11.1.2010.3. Petitioner submits that, he explained the matter to the 3rd respondent but however he has now been issued Ext.P3 transfer order. Aggrieved by Ext.P3, petitioner filed Ext.P4 representation before the first respondent. It is thereafter that this writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P3.4. Irrespective of the version as given in the ...

Ramesh Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT794

K.T. Sankaran, J.1. Bail Application No. 584 of 2010 is filed by Accused Nos. 1 to 4 in O.R. No. 1 of 2010 of Vallakadavu Forest Range, Idukki District, while B.A. No. 690 of 2010 is filed by Accused Nos. 5 to 8 therein. The applications are filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The offences alleged against the accused are under Sections 2, 9, 39, 42, 44, 49, 49B, 50, 51 and 57 of the Wild Life Protection Act.3. The prosecution case is the following: On getting intelligence information that a leopard skin was being transported in the Jeep bearing registration number KL-02 C 6072, on 23.1.2010, Mundakkayam Forest Flying squad arrested accused Nos. 1 to 4 (Ratheesh, Shamnad alias Sadique, Asokan and Afsal) while they were transporting a leopard skin. Apart from the leopard skin, a G.P.S., film rolls, batteries etc. were also found in a bag kept in the jeep.4. Further investigation revealed that the leopard was trapped by accused Nos. 1 and 5 to 8 by using a cable. ...

Devaraj Vs. Director General of Police

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(2)KLT203

C.T. Ravikumar, J.1. The petitioner is working as a Detective Inspector in the Crime Branch CID, Kozhikode. While the petitioner was working as Circle Inspector of Police, Sulthan Bathery disciplinary action was initiated against him as per Ext.P2 Memo of Charges. During its pendency, the DPC (Departmental Promotion Committee) (Higher) met on 19.2.2006 for preparing the select list of Circle Inspectors fit for promotion as Deputy Superintendent of Police, for the year 2005 for the anticipated vacancies in the year 2006. Admittedly, it is the pendency of the said disciplinary proceedings initiated for imposition of a major penalty as per Ext.P2 that resulted in the non-inclusion of the petitioner in the said select list for the year 2005.2. Admittedly, said disciplinary action initiated as per Ext.P2 culminated in imposition of barring of one increment for two years with cumulative effect. Ext.P9 is the said order of the disciplinary authority. Though an appeal was preferred against Ext...

Valanchery Grama Panchayat Vs. State of Kerala and the Tribunal for Lo ...

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2010(1)KLT887

Antony Dominic, J.1. Valanchery Grama Panchayat represented by its President filed this writ petition praying for quashing Ext.P4,P6 and P7 and for consequential reliefs.2. Facts of the case are that by Ext.P1 dated 15.9.2007, the petitioner Panchayat resolved to covey its willingness to allot 1.5 acres of land acquired by it for industrial purposes to SIDCO for setting up an industrial estate, retaining ownership over the said property. It was further resolved to authorize the Secretary to negotiate with the authorities of SIDCO and to seek Government sanction in the matter. It is stated that on the basis of Ext.P1, Government accorded sanction for leasing out the property to SIDCO for a period of 30 years and that on the strength of Ext.P1, Secretary of the Panchayat entered into an agreement with SIDCO also.3. Subsequently, by Ext.P3 dated 13.12.2007, the Panchayat made certain amendment to Ext.P1 which in effect is a retraction from the decisions contained in Ext.P1 resolution. Whe...