Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAJAN THIRUVOTH versus KERALA WATER AUTHORITY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


RAJAN THIRUVOTH v. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY - WP(C) No. 27163 of 2006(H) [2007] RD-KL 197 (3 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 27163 of 2006(H)

1. RAJAN THIRUVOTH,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,
... Respondent

2. THE SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,

3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

4. SMT.NIRMALA M.V.,

For Petitioner :SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.K.DENESAN

Dated :03/01/2007

O R D E R

K.K.DENESAN, J.

WP(C)No. 27163 OF 2006

Dated this the 3rd January, 2007.



JUDGMENT

The petitioner belongs to the category of Head Clerk in the service of the respondent Water Authority. Feeling aggrieved by order passed by the respondent on 25.9.2006 transferring the petitioner from Kozhikode to Kanjhangad he had preferred Ext.P3 representation before the first respondent to review that order to the extent it adversely affected him. Subsequently, he filed W.P(C) 25939/2006 seeking to set aside that order. This Court by Ext.P4 judgment directed the first respondent to consider the representation filed by the petitioner for review of order dated 25.9.2006 and to take appropriate decision within a time frame. The petitioner has filed this writ petition pointing out that the first respondent had failed to pass orders as directed but is proceeding to fill up the vacancy by posting other incumbents.

2. Counsel for the Water Authority has filed a statement on behalf of the first respondent stating that the representation filed by the petitioner was considered, and taking note of all relevant facts and circumstances, the order transferring the petitioner to Kasaragode has been modified and the petitioner has been posted at WPC 27163/2006 2 Vadakara in Kozhikode district. According to the respondents only that much relief can be granted to the petitioner having regard to all relevant circumstances. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the modified order is no relief to him because he wanted to be retained in the very same place. I do not think that this Court will be justified in granting such a relief to the petitioner in the light of the averments contained in the statement filed on behalf of the respondents. No other orders are called for and the writ petition is closed. K.K.DENESAN Judge jj


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.