Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

C.M.BALAKRISHANAN NAMBIAR versus THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


C.M.BALAKRISHANAN NAMBIAR v. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER - WP(C) No. 21197 of 2007(W) [2007] RD-KL 12559 (10 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 21197 of 2007(W)

1. C.M.BALAKRISHANAN NAMBIAR,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
... Respondent

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HR & CE,

3. THE COMMISSIONER, HR & CE,

4. KAIPACHERY CHANDRAN,

5. M.P.BHASKARAN,

For Petitioner :SRI.T.P.KELU NAMBIAR (SR.)

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

Dated :10/07/2007

O R D E R

K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & ANTONY DOMINIC, JJ.


===============================
W.P(C). NO. 21197 OF 2007
======================

Dated this the 10th day of July, 2007



J U D G M E N T

Radhakrishnan, J.

This writ petition has been preferred seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Exts. P2 and P4 notices issued by the Assistant Commissioner and to declare that the respondents 1 and 2 have no power to make a declaration that a private temple is a public temple.

2. Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner brought to our knowledge a Division Bench judgment of this court in K.V.Gopinathan and Others v. Kannankav Devasom (2004 (2)KAJ 552 (Ker-DB) and submitted that only the Deputy Commissioner has got power to decide such questions.

3. Learned counsel relies on the notices received from the Assistant Commissioner and submitted that the notices are illegal WPC No.21197/2007 since Assistant Commissioner has no jurisdiction to issue such notices. This court has already declared that only Deputy Commissioner can decide such issues and not the Assistant Commissioner. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the Assistant Commissioner was only directed to hold an enquiry and orders would be passed only by the Deputy Commissioner.

4. Under the above mentioned circumstances, we are inclined to dispose of this petition holding that the issue can be decided only by the Deputy Commissioner and not by the Assistant Commissioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner raised a further complaint that petitioner has not been served with the copy of the complaint submitted by the respondents 4 and 5 before the Government. Learned Government Pleader submitted that the copy of the complaint would be provided to the petitioner forthwith. Since we have ordered that only Deputy Commissioner has the power to decide the issue, we find no reason to interfere WPC No.21197/2007 with Exts.P2 and P4 notices issued for conducting an enquiry. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Writ petition is disposed of as above.

K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.

ANTONY DOMINIC, 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.