Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M.G. MURALEEDHARAN NAIR versus STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M.G. MURALEEDHARAN NAIR v. STATE OF KERALA - WP(C) No. 21381 of 2007(U) [2007] RD-KL 17400 (17 September 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 21381 of 2007(U)

1. M.G. MURALEEDHARAN NAIR,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS,

4. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,

5. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT,

6. THE PRESIDENT,

7. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

8. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,

9. KOIPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT,

10. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

For Petitioner :SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND

For Respondent :SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

Dated :17/09/2007

O R D E R

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.

.......................................................... W.P.(C)No.21381 OF 2007 ...........................................................

DATED THIS THE 17TH SEPTEMBER, 2007



J U D G M E N T

This Writ Petition is filed by a resident of Ward XIII of Koipuram Grama Panchayat (9th respondent) falling within the limits of the 5th respondent-District Panchayat, complaining that a Panchayat road by name Dyemukku-Marangattupady road within the area of the 9th respondent-Panchayat is in a state of total disrepair and seeking various reliefs including a direction to respondents 5 to 9 (the District Panchayat, the President of the District Panchayat, the Executive Engineer, LSGD, the Assistant Engineer, LSGD and the Koipuram Panchayat) to implement Ext.P6 project for the maintenance and re- tarring of the above road so as to make the road motorworthy.

2. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the stand taken by the Panchayat is that on account of the pendency of Vigilance enquiry regarding certain works already carried out in the Panchayat, they are unable to implement Ext.P6. The learned Government Pleader further submitted that the pendency of the Vigilance enquiry need not stand in the way of implementation of maintenance works.

3. I notice that this Court has passed an interim order dated 31.7.2007 directing respondents 5 to 7 to take effective steps for WP(C)N0.21381/07 execution of the maintenance works of the road in question as expeditiously as possible. According to me, that interim order grants to the petitioner reliefs which can be legitimately aspired for in this Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is disposed of in view of that interim order.

(PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)

tgl I have heard the counsel for the parties again after the above judgment was delivered. Considering the submissions of Mr.S.Subhash Chand, counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the respondents, there will be a specific direction to respondents 5 to 7 to carry out and complete the maintenance and repair works of the Dyemukku-Marangattupady road situated within the area of respondents 5 and 9 and to convert the said road to motorable conditions at the earliest and at any rate by 31.10.2007.

(PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)

tgl WP(C)N0.21381/07 WP(C)N0.21381/07


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.