Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

K. AJITHKUMAR versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


K. AJITHKUMAR v. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT - WP(C) No. 25648 of 2006(C) [2007] RD-KL 14 (1 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 25648 of 2006(C)

1. K. AJITHKUMAR,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
... Respondent

2. PROJECT OFFICER (COIR),

3. AMBALAPPUZHA COIR MATS &

For Petitioner :SRI.P.N.MOHANAN

For Respondent :SRI.A.JAYASANKAR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.M.JAMES

Dated :01/01/2007

O R D E R

J.M.JAMES, J.

W.P.(C). 25648/2006 Dated this the 1st day of January, 2007

JUDGMENT

The contention raised in this Writ Petition by the writ petitioner is that Ext.P13 order was passed by the Secretary, who had not heard the matter, and on the other hand, the parties were heard by the predecessor in the Office of Secretary of the Industries Department.

2. The learned counsel brought to my notice Ext.P10, which reveal that hearing was conducted by One Smt.V.Bhavani IAS, Additional Secretary to Government on 14.10.2005. However, Ext.P13 order dated 19.8.2006, had been passed by one Smt.Sarada Muraleedharan, who had not heard the parties.

3. The Senior Government Pleader submits that the order was passed after the retirement of the former incumbent, Smt. V.Bhavani, IAS, which is permitted as per the law. But the counsel for the writ petitioner submits that it was not the Order, which was written by the previous incumbent, and pronounced by the successor in the office. The Order had been written and pronounced W.P.(C).25648/2006 2 by the Successor, without hearing the parties. Therefore, all the contentions, that were raised before the former Secretary, Smt.V.Bhavani IAS who heard the matter, had not been dealt with, considered and appreciated by the Secretary, who passed Ext.P13 order, submits the counsel. Hence, the counsel further submits that an opportunity may be given to agitate the matter afresh before the present incumbent in the office of the Secretary of the Industries Department.

4. After hearing both sides and considering the materials that are placed before me, I quash Ext.P13 order dated 19.8.2006. I remand the matter to the first respondent, who shall hear again all the parties concerned, and dispose of the same afresh at the earliest, in any case within two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is allowed as above. J.M.JAMES

JUDGE

mrcs


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.