Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

V.S. CHANDRA BABU versus STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


V.S. CHANDRA BABU v. STATE OF KERALA - WP(C) No. 31532 of 2006(D) [2006] RD-KL 2069 (28 November 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 31532 of 2006(D)

1. V.S. CHANDRA BABU,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent

2. THE KEALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT

3. THE VELLARADA GRAMA PANCHAYAT,

4. SATHEESH RAJ,

For Petitioner :SRI.D.KISHORE

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

Dated :28/11/2006

O R D E R

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.

W.P.(C) No. 31532 OF 2006

Dated this the 28th day of November, 2006



JUDGMENT

The grievance of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent-Panchayat has permitted the construction of a workshop for the K.S.R.T.C in proximity to his own residential property falling within the silence Zone as per Ext.P1 notification. The proposed site is within a distance of just 51 meters from the Government Hospital, Vellarada and the petitioner relies on Exts.P3 and P2 to contend so. It is ignoring Exts.P4 and P1 that the respondents are going ahead with the plan to construct the workshop, so petitioner alleges who accordingly prays that Ext.P1 tender notice to the extent it tenders the work of construction of KSRTC workshop at Anappara be quashed. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner made persuasive submissions and invited my attention to various documents placed by the petitioner, I am of the view that it is not necessary to examine the merits of the matter at this stage by this Court. Ext.P5 representation has been submitted by the petitioner to the Secretary, Vellarada Grama Panchayat. The 3rd respondent will take up Ext.P5, issue notice to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent-KSRTC as well as the 4th respondent-Contractor who has been awarded the contract and take a decision in the light of the various grounds raised in the Writ Petition and documents produced particularly Ext.P1. Decision as ordered above will be taken by the 3rd respondent at his earliest and at any rate within three weeks of receiving a copy of this judgment. If the WPC No.31532/2006 2 work has not started already, the 4th respondent shall not start the work before the Panchayat takes a decision as ordered above.

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE

btt WPC No.31532/2006 3


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.