Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

T.B.ALIYAR, S/O.T.S.BAVA, THAILAL HOUSE versus TOGY GEORGE, NELLIKUNEL

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


T.B.ALIYAR, S/O.T.S.BAVA, THAILAL HOUSE v. TOGY GEORGE, NELLIKUNEL - WA No. 493 of 2004(E) [2007] RD-KL 10678 (19 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA No. 493 of 2004(E)

1. T.B.ALIYAR, S/O.T.S.BAVA, THAILAL HOUSE,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. TOGY GEORGE, NELLIKUNEL,
... Respondent

2. THE SECRETARY,

3. NANDAKUMAR.C. PATHUVALLY KALATYIL HOUSE,

For Petitioner :SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL

For Respondent :SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

Dated :19/06/2007

O R D E R

H.L. DATTU, C.J. & K.T. SANKARAN, J.

................................................................................... W.A. No. 493 OF 2004 ...................................................................................

Dated this the 19th June, 2007



J U D G M E N T

H.L. Dattu, C.J.: Challenging the correctness or otherwise of the judgment of the learned single Judge in O.P.No. 31135 of 2002 dated 25.10.2002, a third party has filed this appeal.

2. While disposing of the Original Petition, the learned single Judge had only directed the first respondent in the Original Petition to consider the representation filed by the petitioner therein. The representation referred to therein was for assigning appropriate time between two stage carriage operators.

3. The grievance of the appellant before us is that if the representation of the petitioner in the Original Petition is considered and an order is passed, there may be a possibility of unsettling of the time assigned to him, by the Secretary, the first respondent in the Original Petition.

4. In a scenario like this, if we direct the Secretary, the first respondent in the Original Petition/the second respondent herein, that, while considering Ext.P1 representation filed by the petitioner in the Original Petition/first respondent herein, he would also issue notice to the W.A. No. 493 OF 2004 2 appellant in this appeal and, after affording an opportunity of being heard, would pass appropriate orders, in our opinion, it would serve the purpose of this Writ Appeal.

5. Accordingly, the following:

O R D E R



i) Writ Appeal is disposed of. ii) The first respondent in the Original Petition/second respondent herein, while considering Ext. P1 representation filed by the petitioner in the Original Petition/first respondent herein, for assigning appropriate time between two stage carriage operators, will also hear the appellant in this Writ Appeal and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. iii) I.A.Nos. 793 and 1827 of 2004 are also disposed of. Ordered accordingly. H.L. DATTU, CHIEF JUSTICE. K.T. SANKARAN,

JUDGE.

lk


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.