Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KAITHARI NEYTHU VYAVASAYA THOZHILALI versus KERALA LOK AYUKTHA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


KAITHARI NEYTHU VYAVASAYA THOZHILALI v. KERALA LOK AYUKTHA - WP(C) No. 3406 of 2007(E) [2007] RD-KL 4641 (5 March 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 3406 of 2007(E)

1. KAITHARI NEYTHU VYAVASAYA THOZHILALI
... Petitioner

2. NELLIVILA HANDLOOM CO-OP.SOCIETY LTD.

Vs

1. KERALA LOK AYUKTHA,
... Respondent

2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE

3. THE DIRECTOR,

4. THE DIRECTOR OF HANDLOOMS AND TEXTILES,

5. N.VISWAMBHARAN, BEENA COTTAGE,

For Petitioner :SRI.P.N.MOHANAN

For Respondent :SRI.T.K.ANANDA PADMANABHAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

Dated :05/03/2007

O R D E R

S. SIRI JAGAN, J.

W.P.(C)NO.3406 OF 2007

DATED THIS THE 5th DAY OF MARCH, 2007



JUDGMENT

The 1st petitioner is a union of workers of the second petitioner Society. They are aggrieved by Exts.P3 and P4 orders of the Kerala Lok Ayukta by which an enquiry by the Vigilance Department against certain Societies including the 2nd petitioner Society have been directed. The petitioners' case is that this Court in W.A.No.3679/01 had directed the 4th respondent to conduct an enquiry on the same subject matter. The petitioners would submit that therefore the Society would be put to difficulties, if two enquiries ordered by two authorities are simultaneously proceeded with.

2. I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition because since the 2nd petitioner Society was a party to Exts.P3 and P4 proceedings of the Lok Ayukta and since they were aware of the proceedings in W.A.No.3679/01 before this Court they could have informed this Court about Exts.P3 and P4 orders and obtain appropriate clarifications, if necessary by impleading themselves in the same. W.P.(C)NO.3406/07 2 The learned counsel for the petitioners would point out that Ext.P1 order was passed subsequent to Exts.P3 and P4 orders. Whatever that be, it would be open to the petitioners to move an appropriate petition either in W.A.No.3679/01 or before the Lok Ayukta pointing out that two simultaneous enquiries have been ordered by the two authorities and seek appropriate reliefs in either of the proceedings. Without prejudice to such right, the writ petition is disposed of as above.

S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

Acd W.P.(C)NO.3406/07 3


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.