Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

AJAYAKUMAR.V., VAZHAVANNOR versus THRIKKADAVOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


AJAYAKUMAR.V., VAZHAVANNOR v. THRIKKADAVOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT - WP(C) No. 29442 of 2006(E) [2006] RD-KL 2075 (29 November 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 29442 of 2006(E)

1. AJAYAKUMAR.V., VAZHAVANNOR
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THRIKKADAVOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
... Respondent

2. THE SECRETARY, THRIKKADAVOOR GRAMA

3. C.N.W. NEWS, REG.NO.Q.612/99,

4. S.SUDARSANA DAS, KADAVOOR CABLES,

5. S.CHANDRABABU, THRIKKARUVA CABLE VISION,

6. AJAYAKUMAR.B., SKY VIEW CABLES,

7. P.SHANMUGHADAS, ARADHANA CABLE NETWORK,

For Petitioner :SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE

For Respondent :SRI.S.VINODKUMAR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

Dated :29/11/2006

O R D E R

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,J.

``````````````````````````` W.P.(C) NO. 29442 OF 2006 ```````````````````````````

Dated this the 29th day of November, 2006



J U D G M E N T

Sri.O.V.Maniprasad, counsel appearing for the first respondent Panchayat submitted that the Tribunal in Appeal No.362/06 has passed an order directing the Panchayat to ensure that placing of poles will not cause any hindrance to the ingress and egress to and from the properties abutting roads on the side of which poles are to be erected. Sri.Maniprasad submits that all the directions of the Tribunal in its order in Appeal No.362/06 will be very faithfully complied with.

2. Mr.Subash Chandra Bose, counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the 3rd respondent also submit that their parties are aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal and are yet to obtain a copy of the order of the Tribunal. Counsel for the seventh respondent submitted that the intention of the writ petitioner is to delay the drawing of line by the seventh respondent.

3. I notice that the order of the Tribunal is not under challenge in this case. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that it will suffice if the submissions of the counsel for the WPC 29442/2006 Panchayat are recorded and the directions of the Tribunal are faithfully complied with.

4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of recording the submission of the counsel for the Panchayat that the directions in Appeal No.362/06 will be strictly and faithfully complied with. However, in view of the submissions of the petitioner and the third respondent that they intend to challenge the order of the Tribunal, interim order passed in this case will continue for a period of two more weeks from today.

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE

Rp


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.