Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SATHEESAN, AGED 52 YEARS versus STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SATHEESAN, AGED 52 YEARS v. STATE OF KERALA - WP(C) No. 21486 of 2007(G) [2007] RD-KL 12892 (12 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 21486 of 2007(G)

1. SATHEESAN, AGED 52 YEARS,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent

2. DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES,

3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, THRISSUR.

For Petitioner :SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

Dated :12/07/2007

O R D E R

S. SIRI JAGAN, J.

W.P.(C)NO.21486 OF 2007

DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF JULY, 2007



JUDGMENT

In co-operation with the National Fishermen Welfare Fund, the State Government has framed a scheme for providing financial aid for construction of houses and repair of houses, which were damaged due to flood in coastal area. As per the scheme, 90% of the available houses would be allotted by drawing lots from the applicants. Balance 10% of the houses were to be given to the most needy persons. As per the original scheme, persons constituting 10% discretionary quota were to be recommended by a beneficiary committee constituted for that purpose. The Government has now decided to dispense with that procedure and to take it upon itself the task of choosing the persons under 10% discretionary quota also. This is challenged by the petitioner, who claims to be the member of the beneficiary committee. The petitioner submits that the beneficiary committee is more competent to do the selection than the Government, and that no guide lines have been prescribed for the selection. I I am not inclined to accept the contentions of the petitioner. The beneficiary committee consists of people from the locality. When the Government constituted the committee under powers vested with W.P.(c)No.21486/07 2 them, the Government can also legally dispense with that procedure and take it upon itself to decide the 10% quota also. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed.

S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

Acd


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.