Kerala High Court
WP(C)/38725/2010 of KIRATHAN NAMBOOTHIRI E.V. Vs THE DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER on 31 December 2010
HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 31ST DECEMBER 2010 / 10TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 38725 of 2010(M) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. KIRATHAN NAMBOOTHIRI E.V., EDAMANA VELUTHEDATH MANA, VELAPPAYA, CHINA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN
FRIDAY, THE 31ST DECEMBER 2010 / 10TH POUSHA 1932
WP(C).No. 38725 of 2010(M)
--------------------------
PETITIONERS:
---------------
1. KIRATHAN NAMBOOTHIRI E.V.,
EDAMANA VELUTHEDATH MANA, VELAPPAYA,
CHINA BAZAR, THRISSUR-680 596.
2. SOUDAMINI,W/O.KIRATHAN NAMBOOTHIRI E.V., EDAMANA VELUTHEDATH MANA, VELAPPAYA, CHINA BAZAR, THRISSUR-680 596.
BY ADV. SRI.A.S.P.KURUP
SRI.SADCHITH.P.KURUP
RESPONDENTS:
---------------
1. THE DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER, THRISSUR. - 680001
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, THRISSUR. - 680020
SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 31/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
K.SURENDRAMOHAN, J.
---------------------------------------
WP (C) No. 38725 of 2010---------------------------------------Dated this the 31[st] day of December, 2010
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners have filed this writ petitioncomplaining that Ext.P1 notice had been issued to themdirecting them to appear for a hearing before the locallevel committee in connection with the consideration ofsome application that was pending consideration of thesaid authority. According to the petitioners they haveneither been served with a copy of the application thatwas being considered by the committee, nor informedabout the identity of the person who had submitted theapplication. Without knowing any of the details about theapplication that was under consideration of the localcommittee, it was not possible for them to effectivelyparticipate in the hearing. According to the petitionersthey were under the impression that, copies of therelevant documents would be given to them at the time ofhearing on 23.12.2010. Therefore they appeared for thehearing and orders have been reserved. The petitioners WP (C) No. 38725 of 2010
2
requested for a further opportunity to place theirobjections before the committee.
2. The learned Government Pleader opposes the prayer and submits that since the hearing is already overand what remains is only the passing of the final order,there are no grounds to interfere with the proceedings atthis stage. For the above reason it is submitted that thiswrit petition is devoid of merits.
3. Though admittedly Ext.P1 was received by the petitioners on 21.12.2010, no records are produced toshow that the petitioners had tried to obtain a copy of theapplication that was the subject matter of Ext.P1. On failsto understand why the petitioners did not approach theauthority seeking a copy of application, if the contentionof the petitioners is true. As matters stand, they haveparticipated in the hearing without obtaining even a copyof the application. At present, the hearing is over and thematter is pending orders. Therefore I do not find anyjustification to interfere with the said proceedings at this WP (C) No. 38725 of 2010
stage.
4. The petitioners are free to raise all the above contentions, while challenging the final order that is likelyto be passed in the matter. Reserving the above right ofthe petitioners, this writ petition is dismissed.
rkc
K.SURENDRAMOHAN,
JUDGE.