Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

P.APPUKUTTAN PILLAI, HIGH SCHOOL versus THE OBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


P.APPUKUTTAN PILLAI, HIGH SCHOOL v. THE OBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT - WP(C) No. 16117 of 2007(R) [2007] RD-KL 13151 (16 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 16117 of 2007(R)

1. P.APPUKUTTAN PILLAI, HIGH SCHOOL
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE OBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT
... Respondent

2. THE KOLLAM CORPORATION, KOLLAM,

3. G.BHAVANANDAN(RETIRED HEADMASTER,

For Petitioner :SRI.K.G.CLEETUS

For Respondent :SRI.B.VINOD

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH

Dated :16/07/2007

O R D E R

K.M.JOSEPH, J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C).No.16117 OF 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 16th day of July, 2007



JUDGMENT

Petitioner challenges Ext.P5. By Ext.P5, the Ombudsman has, on the basis of the referred case by the Government, ordered steps to be taken by the second respondent to release the amount contained in the notice sent by the Corporation including the attachment from salary and also revenue recovery proceedings. According to the petitioner, he has submitted Ext.P4 pointing out that he is appointed as examiner in the S.S.L.C. examination. But, it is without considering the same and without hearing the petitioner, the order is passed, it is stated. I find that Ext.P5 is seen passed against the petitioner and the matter itself is closed. In the nature of the order I passed it would have been more appropriate that an opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and a decision taken. In such circumstances, Ext.P5 is to be quashed for the reason that petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing. Accordingly, WPC No.16117/07 2 Ext.P5 is quashed and the first respondent will consider the matter afresh with opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, second respondent and the third respondent and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. Learned counsel for the second respondent submits that even from 2004 onwards recovery was being effected from the petitioner. I make it clear that I have not pronounced on the validity of that recovery.

(K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE)

sv. WPC No.16117/07 3


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.