Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

N. ASHOKAN, MANAGER, VANNERY HISH versus STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


N. ASHOKAN, MANAGER, VANNERY HISH v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY - WP(C) No. 28124 of 2003(W) [2007] RD-KL 16011 (18 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 28124 of 2003(W)

1. N. ASHOKAN, MANAGER, VANNERY HISH
... Petitioner

Vs

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

2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL

3. THE DIRECTO OF HIGHER SECONDARY

For Petitioner :SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN

For Respondent :SRI.V.K.BEERAN, ADDL.ADVOCATE GENERAL

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

Dated :18/08/2007

O R D E R

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

W.P.(C) No.28124 of 2003

Dated, this the 18th day of August, 2007



JUDGMENT

H.L.Dattu, C.J. Petitioner is the Manager of Vannery High School, Punnayoorkulam. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

"i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 1st respondent to sanction Higher Secondary Division to the petitioner's High school based on the recommendation made in Exhibit P2. ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 1st respondent to take up Exhibit P3 and to dispose of the same after hearing the petitioner; and iii) to grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case." (2) Even before approaching this Court, the petitioner had gone before the respondents by filing a representation dated 4.7.2003. It is the grievance of the petitioner before this Court that the said representation is not yet considered by the respondents, and therefore, he requests us to issue appropriate direction to the respondents. (3) An aggrieved person is before the respondents for consideration of his representation. That representation requires to be considered by the respondents within a reasonable time. Since that has not been done an appropriate direction requires to be issued. (4) Accordingly, the following: Order

i) The writ petition is disposed of. W.P.(C) No.28124/2003 2 ii) The second respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 4.7.2003, if it is available in his files, in accordance with law. 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.