Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JITHIN JOY versus P.I.THAJUDEEN

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


JITHIN JOY v. P.I.THAJUDEEN - WA No. 1677 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 12694 (11 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA No. 1677 of 2007()

1. JITHIN JOY,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. P.I.THAJUDEEN,
... Respondent

2. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,

3. THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES,

4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM.

5. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER,

6. THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER,

For Petitioner :SRI.K.J.KURIACHAN

For Respondent : No Appearance

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

Dated :11/07/2007

O R D E R

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

W.A.No.1677 of 2007

Dated, this the 11th day of July, 2007



JUDGMENT

H.L.Dattu, C.J. Ext.P8 order passed by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies was the subject matter in the writ petition. By the said order the Commissioner of Civil Supplies had granted Authorised Wholesale Dealer licence to the 6th respondent in the writ petition by setting aside the orders of the District Collector granting licence in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has carried the matter by way of revision before the State Government.

2. In the writ petition, the petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash Ext.P8 order and for a further direction to respondents 4 and 5 not to implement Ext.P8 order. The consequential prayer was to direct the State Government to dispose of the revision petition (Ext.P9) within a particular time frame.

3. The learned Single Judge by his order dated 24th May, 2007 has disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the first respondent to consider the stay petition filed by the petitioner along with his revision petition. Further has directed that Ext.P8 order passed by the Commissioner be kept in abeyance. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge, the 6th respondent in the writ petition has presented this writ appeal.

4. Admittedly, the District Collector, Ernakulam had granted Authorised Wholesale Dealer licence to the petitioner and that order has been reversed by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Thiruvananthapuram in the appeal filed by W.A.No.1677/2007 2 the 6th respondent. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Commissioner, the petitioner has already carried the matter by way of revision before the State Government and along with the revision petition a stay petition is also filed. Before considering the stay petition if Ext.P8 order is implemented, the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss which cannot be compensated in terms of the money and therefore, the learned Single Judge has only directed the authorities to keep Ext.P8 order in abeyance till the stay petition filed by the petitioner before the State Government along with his revision petition is decided one way or the other. In our opinion, the order passed by the learned Single Judge in no way affects the interests of any one of the parties to this proceedings. Therefore, the writ appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (K.T.SANKARAN)

JUDGE

vns


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.