Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

K.N.SREEKUMAR, AGED 41, S/O. NARAYANAN versus DISTRICT COLLECTOR

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


K.N.SREEKUMAR, AGED 41, S/O. NARAYANAN v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR - WP(C) No. 27383 of 2007(I) [2007] RD-KL 17337 (14 September 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 27383 of 2007(I)

1. K.N.SREEKUMAR, AGED 41, S/O. NARAYANAN
... Petitioner

Vs

1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
... Respondent

2. THE DISTRICT SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT,

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,

4. ANIL UMMAN,

For Petitioner :SRI.P.J.PAULACHAN

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

Dated :14/09/2007

O R D E R

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.


===============
W.P.(C) NO. 27383 OF 2007
====================

Dated this the 14th day of September, 2007



J U D G M E N T

The petitioner had approached this court in WP(C) No. 21770/07, complaining that an application made by him for mutation of his property was not being acted upon. The writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P2 judgment directing to complete the proceedings within two months of date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

2. Even according to the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, the period prescribed in the judgment is expiring only on 23rd of this month. It is stated that in the meantime, petitioner attempted to produce Exhibits P4 to P8 documents under cover of Ext.P3 representation and that the 2nd respondent is refusing to accept the same. It is on that basis, this writ petition has been filed praying for a direction to the 2nd respondent to accept the documents and WPC 27383/07 act upon the same.

3. Now that the 2nd respondent has to comply with the proceedings pursuant to Ext.P2 judgment of this court, the petitioner is entitled to produce whatever documents that he has in the course of enquiry. If he has produced any documents, the 2nd respondent is bound to accept the same and there cannot be any valid reason for his alleged refusal.

4. Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing that if the petitioner produces Ext.P3 representation and Exhibits P4 to P8 documents, the same will be accepted by the 2nd respondent and considered at the time when he passes orders in pursuance to Ext.P2 judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. Petitioner is directed to produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd respondent for compliance.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.

Rp WPC 27383/07


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.