Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PRAKASH C.VADAKKAN versus STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


PRAKASH C.VADAKKAN v. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY - WP(C) No. 11225 of 2007(S) [2007] RD-KL 6753 (30 March 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 11225 of 2007(S)

1. PRAKASH C.VADAKKAN,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent

2. THE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA,

3. SHRI.V.S.ACHUTHANANDAN,

4. RAJIV GANDHI CENTRE FOR BIOTECHNOLOGY,

5. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,

6. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,

For Petitioner :SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice MR.K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

Dated :30/03/2007

O R D E R

K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, Ag. C.J. & M.N.KRISHNAN, J.

WP(C). No. 11225 of 2007

Dated this the 30th day of March, 2007



J U D G M E N T

Radhakrishnan, Ag. C.J. This public interest litigation is preferred seeking a declaration that the 3rd respondent has violated his oath of office as Minister of the State and he is not entitled to continue in office. A writ of quo warranto directing the third respondent to step down from the office of the Chief Minister was also sought for. A direction was also sought for to the first respondent to conduct a judicial enquiry into the incidents leading to fabrication of Ext.P3 document by a sitting Judge of this Court and also for other consequential reliefs. We are of the view, this is an ill-conceived writ petition only for publicity. Petitioner has produced various documents. Petitioner has stated that though the third respondent has approved the draft of Ext.P3 and put his signature on 17-6-2006, later the same was erased and paragraphs 2 and 3 were added and the third respondent signed the same on 19-6-2007. Learned Government Pleader made available to us the original file which would indicate that third respondent has approved and put his signature on 17-6-2006 and the same paragraphs 2 and 3 were added and the third WP(C). 11225 of 2007. respondent has signed on 10-1-2007. We are not prepared to say that there is any interpellation or dishonest intention on the part of the third respondent much less any abuse of process of law. Writ petition lacks merits and the same is dismissed. K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, (Ag. Chief Justice)

M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE

ksv/


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.