Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

C.H.K.AHAMMED,MUBARAK MANZIL,P.O.CHELERI versus STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


C.H.K.AHAMMED,MUBARAK MANZIL,P.O.CHELERI v. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY - OP No. 1997 of 2002(K) [2007] RD-KL 14978 (6 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP No. 1997 of 2002(K)

1. C.H.K.AHAMMED,MUBARAK MANZIL,P.O.CHELERI
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent

2. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER,

3. SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR),

For Petitioner :SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN

For Respondent :SRI.PAULSON C.VARGHESE,SC,KMTWF BOARD

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

Dated :06/08/2007

O R D E R

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

................................................................................... O.P. No. 1997 OF 2002 ...................................................................................

Dated this the 6th August, 2007



J U D G M E N T

H.L. Dattu, C.J.: In this Original Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner calls in question Ext.P2 order passed by the District Executive Officer, Kerala Motor Workers Welfare Fund Board, Kannur and Ext.P6 revenue recovery notice issued by the Special Deputy Tahsildar (RR), Taliparamba, Kannur district.

2. Aggrieved by Ext.P2 orders passed by the 2nd respondent, it appears that, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the State Government along with an application to condone the delay in filing the appeal. It is his grievance before this Court that during the pendency of the appeal, the third respondent could not have initiated any revenue recovery proceedings against the petitioner.

3. In our opinion, this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner has no merit whatsoever. Ext.P2 order is not stayed by any superior forum. Merely because of an appeal is filed and the same is pending, it does O.P. No. 1997 OF 2002 2 not mean that the second respondent cannot or is not expected to, initiate proceedings to recover any amount due under Ext.P2 order.

4. In view of the above, we do not see any merit in this Original Petition. Therefore, the Original Petition requires to be rejected and it is rejected.

5. C.M.P.Nos . 3497 and 43325 of 2002 are also disposed of. Ordered accordingly. H.L. DATTU, CHIEF JUSTICE. K.T. SANKARAN,

JUDGE.

lk O.P. No. 1997 OF 2002 3 H.L. DATTU, C.J.&

K.T. SANKARAN, J.

........................................................ O.P. No. 1997 OF 2002 .........................................................

Dated this the 6th August,2007



J U D G M E N T


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.