Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ABDUL RAHIMAN, S/O.MOHAMMED versus THRISSUR CORPORATION, REP. BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


ABDUL RAHIMAN, S/O.MOHAMMED v. THRISSUR CORPORATION, REP. BY - WA No. 2439 of 2006 [2007] RD-KL 1 (1 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA No. 2439 of 2006()

1. ABDUL RAHIMAN, S/O.MOHAMMED,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THRISSUR CORPORATION, REP. BY
... Respondent

2. RAMLA, W/O.MOHAMMADKUTTY,

For Petitioner :SRI.M.K.DILEEP KUMAR

For Respondent :SRI.K.P.VIJAYAN

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.V.K.BALI The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.RAMACHANDRAN

Dated :01/01/2007

O R D E R

V.K.Bali,C.J. & M.Ramachandran,J.

W.A.No.2439 of 2006

Dated, this the 1st day of January, 2007



JUDGMENT

V.K.Bali,C.J. (Oral) The short order that has been impugned in the present Writ Appeal reads as follows:-

"No representation for the petitioner when the case is taken up for hearing today.

2. Heard Mr.K.P.Vijayan, learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent and Mr.P.Vijaya Bhanu, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.

3. As rightly submitted by the Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent and the counsel for the 2nd respondent, it is open to the petitioner to impugn Ext.P6 before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. I relegate the petitioner to that remedy. In view of the above direction, the interim order presently passed will continue only for a period of ten more days from today. The Writ Petition will stand disposed of as above. No costs".

2. The order reproduced above would clearly suggest that there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner, i.e. the appellant in the present Writ Appeal. In the circumstances, W.A.No.2439 of 2006 - 2 - the order passed by the learned Single Judge relegating the petitioner to the statutory remedy of appeal may not be faulted, even though we may mention that it is the case of the petitioner that once the writ petition was admitted and pending for long time it ought not have been disposed of relegating the petitioner to alternative remedy. He may be right. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case and particularly when the counsel for the petitioner did not appear even, it would be more appropriate for the petitioner to move the required application before the learned Single Judge for disposal of the writ petition on merits. With leave and liberty to the petitioner to move the requisite application before the learned Single Judge in the light of the observation as made above, the appeal is closed. V.K.Bali Chief Justice M.Ramachandran vku/- Judge


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.