Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

P.K. PRADEEP KUMAR, S/O.KUTTAPPAN versus THE THALAYOLAPARAMBU GRAMA PANCHAYAT

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


P.K. PRADEEP KUMAR, S/O.KUTTAPPAN v. THE THALAYOLAPARAMBU GRAMA PANCHAYAT - WP(C) No. 31556 of 2006(F) [2006] RD-KL 2124 (29 November 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 31556 of 2006(F)

1. P.K. PRADEEP KUMAR, S/O.KUTTAPPAN,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE THALAYOLAPARAMBU GRAMA PANCHAYAT
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL

For Respondent : No Appearance

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. 31556 OF 2006

Dated this the 29th day of November, 2006



JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who was allotted one room in a three room shopping complex belonging to the Thalayolaparambu Panchayat and is conducting a bakery in that room, is aggrieved by Ext.P1 order passed by the Secretary of the Panchayat on the basis of a resolution of the council of the Panchayat to take possession back of the room on the ground that the room is required for the expansion of a Homoeo Dispensary which is being conducted by the Panchayat itself in the other two rooms of the complex. Petitioner would contend that the room having been alloted to him in the quota earmarked for persons belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes, he cannot be compelled to surrender the same unless it be for a purpose beneficial to the SC or ST community. But then, on the terms of the agreement executed between the petitioner and the Panchayat, it is obligatory that the petitioner shall surrender as and when the Panchayat requested surrender for genuine public purposes. The petitioner does not have a case that the services of the Homoeo Dispensary are not extended to persons belonging to the SC or STs. However, I do not propose to examine the merits of the matter in greater detail. I notice that the petitioner has remedy by way of appeal to the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. I relegate the petitioner to that remedy and dispose of the Writ Petition accordingly. If the Tribunal receives an appeal from the petitioner within two weeks of the petitioner WPC No.31556/2006 2 receiving a copy of this judgment, the Tribunal will entertain that appeal as filed on time and take a decision on the same in accordance with law. In view of the above directions, the impugned order Ext.P1 and the consequential notice Ext.P3 will be kept in abeyance for a period of six weeks from today.

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE

btt WPC No.31556/2006 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.