Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M.RAJAGOPAL, CHANDRIKA BHAVAN versus STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M.RAJAGOPAL, CHANDRIKA BHAVAN v. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY - WP(C) No. 19074 of 2007(U) [2007] RD-KL 11268 (26 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 19074 of 2007(U)

1. M.RAJAGOPAL, CHANDRIKA BHAVAN,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent

2. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,

3. DIRECTOR,

4. MANAGING DIRECTOR,

For Petitioner :SRI.M.BALAGOVINDAN

For Respondent : No Appearance

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

Dated :26/06/2007

O R D E R

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

W.P.(C) NO. 19074 OF 2007 S

Dated this the 26th June, 2007



JUDGMENT

H.L.DATTU, C.J. Learned Senior Government Pleader, Sri.M.R.Sabu, is directed to take notice for the respondents and to file a memo of appearance within six days.

2. Petitioner is the Superintendent of Juvenile Home, Thiruvananthapuram. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner calls in question the orders passed by the State Government, dated 16th June, 2007. By the impugned order, the State Government have bifurcated the quarters of the Superintendent of Juvenile Home for the purpose of running a working women's hostel by the Women's Development Corporation.

3. In our view, the petition filed by the petitioner is wholly premature. Before approaching this Court for appropriate direction, the petitioner ought to have brought to the notice of the respondent State Government the difficulties that the inmates of the Juvenile Home would experience if, for any reason, the quarters of the Superintendent of Juvenile Home is bifurcated into two and allotted for W.P.(C) NO.19074 OF 2007 the purpose of running a working women's hostel by the Women's Development Corporation.

4. In that view of the matter, we dispose of the writ petition. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner, if he so desires, to approach the State Government by filing appropriate representation by bringing to their notice the possible difficulties that the petitioner may experience if the orders passed by the State Government is implemented. It is needless to say, if such a representation is made, the first respondent will consider the same in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) Chief Justice (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/


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.