Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

T.A.JOHN, S/O. T.D.AUGUSTINE versus DEVASSIA M.D.

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


T.A.JOHN, S/O. T.D.AUGUSTINE v. DEVASSIA M.D. - WA No. 2143 of 2006(E) [2007] RD-KL 4432 (27 February 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA No. 2143 of 2006(E)

1. T.A.JOHN, S/O. T.D.AUGUSTINE,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. DEVASSIA M.D.,
... Respondent

2. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION,

3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE

4. NIRMALAGIRI COLLEGE,

5. THE KANNUR UNIVERSITY,

For Petitioner :SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE

For Respondent :SRI.SIBY MATHEW

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMAN The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

Dated :27/02/2007

O R D E R

P.R.RAMAN & ANTONY DOMINIC, JJ.

````````````````````````````````````` W.A.NO. 2143 OF 2006 ```````````````````````````

Dated this the 27th day of February, 2007



J U D G M E N T

P.R.Raman, J.

The fifth respondent in the writ petition, is the appellant herein. The only grievance expressed by him is that he had already filed writ petition as WP(c) No.39958/2003 against Ext.P5 and while that writ petition is pending, the petitioner herein sought to implement Ext.P5 by filing the writ petition, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge as a result it may lead to an anomalous situation, in case the writ petition filed by the appellant is allowed. We cannot agree. It is true that the appellant herein has preferred a writ petition as WP(c) No.39958/2003. But no stay was granted. As such, nothing stands in the way of implementing Ext.P5 order and such implementation during the pendency of the writ petition will not affect his right or contentions therein. The learned Single Judge in such circumstances, directed the concerned respondent to WA 2143/2006 implement Ext.P5, without prejudice to the contention raised by the appellant herein in the other writ petition. We, however, clarify that while conferring the benefit pursuant to the judgment in question, it shall be made clear that the same will be provisional and subject to the result in WP(C) No.39958/2003. Writ appeal is disposed of accordingly with the above clarification.

P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

Rp


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.