Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M.A.JOHN, S/O.ABRAHAM, AGED 70 versus TRAVANCORE TITANIUM LTD.

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M.A.JOHN, S/O.ABRAHAM, AGED 70 v. TRAVANCORE TITANIUM LTD. - WP(C) No. 33295 of 2006(L) [2007] RD-KL 3581 (19 February 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 33295 of 2006(L)

1. M.A.JOHN, S/O.ABRAHAM, AGED 70,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. TRAVANCORE TITANIUM LTD.,
... Respondent

2. THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL

3. THE ENVIRON CHEM.LTD.,

4. STATE OF KERALA,

5. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIONS,

For Petitioner :SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNAMTHANAM (SR.)

For Respondent :SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN(SR.)SC,TRAV.TITANIUM

The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT

Dated :19/02/2007

O R D E R

R.BASANT, J

W.P(C).No.33295 of 2006

Dated this the 19th day of February, 2007



JUDGMENT

The petitioner claims to be a public activist and a political leader. He is aggrieved by the proposal to set up a plant to control pollution in the Travancore Titanium Products Ltd. According to him, the decision to set up the plant was not a bona fide decision taken and it was only used as a cloak or cover to siphon out funds of M/s.Travancore Titanium Products Ltd., a State Government owned company. The prayer made is to order an enquiry into the details of the transaction relating to the award of the said contract.

2. The respondents have entered appearance. It is submitted that the contract has been entered into transparently and the company is only implementing the direction of the monitoring committee set up by the Supreme Court to control pollution. As per order in W.A.No.6 of 2001, which is extracted in para.16 of the counter statement filed by the 1st respondent, a Division Bench of this Court had also approved the setting up of the plant.

3. No specific instance of culpable conduct is alleged in the implementation of the said direction and the entering into of the contract. What is demanded is only that an enquiry by the C.B.I into the said transaction. The transaction having been virtually approved W.P(C).No.33295 of 2006 2 by this Court as per the judgment in W.A.No.6 of 2001, the omnibus prayer, to conduct an investigation into that very transaction, does not appear to be justified.

4. This Writ Petition is, in these circumstances, dismissed as agreed, but without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner or any other to complain about specific instances of any culpable conduct by the company or its officials in the implementation of the direction issued by the Court and in pursuance of the contract entered into for setting up the plant.

(R.BASANT, JUDGE)

rtr/-


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.