Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 65 versus STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 65 v. STATE OF KERALA - WP(C) No. 10108 of 2007(S) [2007] RD-KL 8337 (23 May 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 10108 of 2007(S)

1. RAMACHANDRAN, AGED 65,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent

2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

For Petitioner :SRI.V.VENUGOPALAN NAIR

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

Dated :23/05/2007

O R D E R

H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.T.SANKARAN, J.

W.P.(C) No.10108 of 2007

Dated, this the 23rd day of May, 2007



JUDGMENT

H.L.Dattu, C.J. A public spirited citizen has approached this Court, inter alia, seeking a direction to the respondents to assign or hand over certain duties to the local bodies as contemplated under the provisions of the River Banks Protection Act, 2001.

2. The grievance pleaded by the petitioner in this writ petition is that the District Collector, Pathanamthitta and his subordinate Tahsildars have deputed staff of village offices for issuing passes for transportation of sand. According to the petitioner, this requires to be done by the local bodies under the River Banks Protection Act.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that since the respondents have violated certain provisions of the River Banks Protection Act, this Court should entertain this writ petition as a public interest litigation and pass appropriate orders.

4. In our opinion, the submission made by the learned W.P.(C) No.10108/2007 2 counsel for the petitioner has no merit whatsoever. If, for any reason, any person in the village is aggrieved by the action of the District Collector, they would certainly come before this Court by way of a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. In our opinion, the petitioner before us does not have any locus standi to present this writ petition. The law on the point is well settled by the apex Court by a number of decisions, reiteration of the same may not be necessary for the purpose of disposal of this writ petition. Therefore, the following: The writ petition is rejected since, in our opinion, the petitioner has no locus standi to present the writ petition. However, liberty is reserved to the villagers of Pathanamthitta to approach this Court, if they are aggrieved by any action of the District Collector, Pathanamthitta. Ordered accordingly. H.L.DATTU, CHIEF JUSTICE

K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE

vns


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.