Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

P.GOPALAN NAIR, S/O.K.CHANDRAN NAIR versus THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


P.GOPALAN NAIR, S/O.K.CHANDRAN NAIR v. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY - WP(C) No. 40670 of 2003(N) [2007] RD-KL 5842 (21 March 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 40670 of 2003(N)

1. P.GOPALAN NAIR, S/O.K.CHANDRAN NAIR,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD

3. THE MADHUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,

4. THE VICAR, ST:JOSEPH CHURCH,

For Petitioner :SRI.K.SHRIHARI RAO

For Respondent :SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE

The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH

Dated :21/03/2007

O R D E R

KURIAN JOSEPH, J.

W.P.(C) No.40670 of 2003 Dated 21st March, 2007.

J U D G M E N T

Challenge is on Ext.P8 order passed by the Government in the matter of grant of licence to set up a concrete type cemetery by the 4th respondent. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the Government has relied on the materials collected after the matter was considered by the District Collector and the petitioner did not have any opportunity to know of the contends of such reports. To that extent there appears to be no dispute, since the reports relied on are subsequent to the consideration by the District Collector. Learned Government Pleader submits that the reports were collected only to assess the factual position and going by the reports, there is no residential house within the objectionable distance and that the cemetery as such will not cause any problem in the locality. Since the petitioner has a case that he was not put to notice of such a report, it is only appropriate that the matter is considered by the Government after permitting the petitioner also to peruse the records. I quash Ext.P8. There will be a direction to the first respondent to consider the matter afresh with notice to the WP NO.40670/03 2 petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 and permit the petitioner to peruse the records referred to in Ext.P8, which have been collected after the matter was considered by the District Collector. Orders shall be passed within two months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment by either party. The writ petition is disposed of as above.

KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE.

tgs

KURIAN JOSEPH, J

O.P.No. of 2002

J U D G M E N T

Dated 21st March, 2007.


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.