Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BEEN SUNNY, W/O. SRI.THARAKAN SUNNY versus CORPORATION OF THRISSUR, THRISSUR

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


BEEN SUNNY, W/O. SRI.THARAKAN SUNNY v. CORPORATION OF THRISSUR, THRISSUR - WP(C) No. 34419 of 2003(V) [2006] RD-KL 1967 (28 November 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 34419 of 2003(V)

1. BEEN SUNNY, W/O. SRI.THARAKAN SUNNY,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. CORPORATION OF THRISSUR, THRISSUR,
... Respondent

2. JERALD, S/O. MOILAN PAUL. P.A.,

3. RAPPAI, S/O. PULLADAN ANTHAPPAN,

For Petitioner :SRI.N.HARIDAS

For Respondent :SRI.K.P.VIJAYAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH

Dated :28/11/2006

O R D E R

KURIAN JOSEPH, J.

W.P(C)No.34419 of 2003

Dated this the 28th day of November, 2006



JUDGMENT

The writ petition is filed with the following prayers:-

i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P13. ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to take a fresh decision in the matter strictly in accordance with the directions contained in Ext.P10 judgment after giving an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard within a time to be fixed by this Hon'ble court. From the impugned order itself it is fairly clear that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity for hearing by the first respondent. The stand taken in the counter affidavit as well as the impugned order is that the petitioner did not appear but only the husband of the petitioner appeared before the first respondent and he had no submissions to make. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had in fact sought for two days' time. Be that as it may, since what the petitioner seeks is only an effective opportunity to participate in the proceedings pursuant to Ext.P10 judgment I quash Ext.P13 with a W.P(C) NO.34419/2003 direction to the first respondent to consider the matter with notice to the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 in the light of Ext.P10 judgment within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In that view of the matter I make it clear that I have not considered the merits of the case in this writ petition and the entire contentions are left open. The writ petition is disposed of as above.

(KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE)

ahg.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.