Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RIYAD, S/O. ABDUL KAREEM versus KARUNAGAPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REP

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


RIYAD, S/O. ABDUL KAREEM v. KARUNAGAPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REP - WP(C) No. 30047 of 2006(B) [2006] RD-KL 1936 (27 November 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 30047 of 2006(B)

1. RIYAD, S/O. ABDUL KAREEM,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. KARUNAGAPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REP.
... Respondent

2. RAMACHANDRAN, S/O. NARAYANAN,

3. THANKAM, W/O. RAMACHANDRAN,

4. PARVATHY, D/O. KALYANI,

For Petitioner :SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY

For Respondent :SRI.P.SATHISAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

Dated :27/11/2006

O R D E R

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,J.

``````````````````````````` W.P.(C) NO. 30047 OF 2006 ```````````````````````````

Dated this the 27th day of November, 2006



J U D G M E N T

Exhibit P10 order passed by the Secretary of the Panchayat is impugned in this writ petition. As rightly submitted by Sri.P.Sathisan, counsel for the second respondent, the petitioner has an effective remedy by way of appeal against Exhibit P10. Mr.Siraj Karoly, learned counsel for the petitioner would invite my attention to the Division Bench judgment of this court in Marimuthu v. Director General of Police (1999(3) KLT 662) and submits that so long as the petitioner is a tenant by holding- over, the Panchayat is not justified in declining licence on ground of objection by the landlord. Counsel submitted that RCP No.11/06 has been preferred before the Rent Control Court of Karunagapally and directing the committee of the Panchayat to hear the appeal against Exhibit P10 will not serve any useful purpose. I do not agree. I am sure that if the judgment of this court in 1999(3) KLT 662 is cited before the Committee, they will give due regard to the principles laid down therein, if the same is applicable to the facts which obtain in the case. WPC 30047/2006

2. Accordingly, writ petition will stand disposed of relegating the petitioner to his remedies by way of appeal against Exhibit P10. If the Committee of the Panchayat receives an appeal against Exhibit P10 within two weeks of petitioner receiving copy of this judgment, the Committee will entertain the appeal as one filed on time and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law with notice to the petitioner and all other affected persons including respondents 2, 3 and 4. Disposal of the prospective appeal shall be made by the Committee of the Ist respondent, Panchayat, at their earliest and at any rate within six weeks of receiving copy of this judgment. In view of the above direction, maintainance of status quo passed in this case will continue till such time as the prospective appeal is disposed of.

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, 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.