High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
FR.THOMAS VIRUTHIYIL (VAZHIYACHAN) v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY - WP(C) No. 4987 of 2007(S)  RD-KL 9980 (11 June 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMWP(C) No. 4987 of 2007(S)
1. FR.THOMAS VIRUTHIYIL (VAZHIYACHAN),
2. SRI.THOMMAN THOMAS,
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, OFFICE OF
3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
For Petitioner :SRI.ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
O R D E R
H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.T.SANKARAN,J.W.P.(C). NO. 4987 OF 2007
Dated this the 11th June, 2007
H.L.DATTU, C.J. Petitioner, a public spirited citizen, is before this Court for the following reliefs. They are as under:
"(i) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writs, orders or directions commanding the 1st respondent to accord necessary approval and sanction to Ext.P8 action plan for the year 2006-2007 forthwith accepting Ext.P10 explanation offered by the 2nd respondent in order to enable the completion of the M.V.I.P project including the distributories thereto as proposed in Ext.P8. (ii) Declare that Ext.P9 issued by the Principal Secretary to Govt. that too after 4 months of the submission of Ext.P8 action plan for the year 2006-07, occasioning to cause delay in the completion of the works proposed to be completed during the current financial year is quite unreasonable and unsustainable and arbitrary. (iii) issue appropriate writ orders or direction commanding the respondents to complete the entire works of the Kurumalloor Major Distributory as proposed in Ext.P8 during the financial year itself without deferring any portion of the work for any of the reasons offered in Ext.P9."
2. When the matter was posted before this Court for admission, the learned Government Pleader was directed to submit before this W.P.(C). NO.4987 OF 2007 Court after obtaining appropriate instructions from the officers of the State Government.
3. The matter is now posted before Court for admission. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, on instructions, would submit that the first respondent has already accorded approval and sanction for the action plan for the year 2006-07 and that the work has already been started. She further states that the alignment of the work is as was done earlier.
4. We do not doubt the correctness of the submission made by the learned Government Pleader.
5. Placing on record the submission made by the learned Government Pleader, the writ petition is disposed of as become unnecessary. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) Chief Justice (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.