Kerala High Court
WP(C)/38115/2008 of PUSHPA SAMBATH KUMAR Vs THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS on 26 December 2008
HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 26TH DECEMBER 2008 / 5TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 38115 of 2008(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ PUSHPA SAMBATH KUMAR, WIDOW OF SAMBATH KUMAR, RESIDING AT KULAPURA HOUSE,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
FRIDAY, THE 26TH DECEMBER 2008 / 5TH POUSHA 1930
WP(C).No. 38115 of 2008(K)
--------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
------------------
PUSHPA SAMBATH KUMAR,WIDOW OF SAMBATH KUMAR,RESIDING AT KULAPURA HOUSE,SULTANPET,PALAKKAD-678 001.
BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.)
SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON
SRI.JIBU P THOMAS
SRI.P.S.APPU
SRI.A.R.NIMOD
RESPONDENT(S):
-------------------
1.THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2.THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,PALAKKAD.
3.THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,CHITTUR, PALAKKAD.
4.THE PUDUSSERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT,REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL GRADE SECRETARY,PUDUSSERY P.O, PALAKKAD.
GOVT.PLEADER SRI.SANDESH RAJA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
==============
W.P.(C) NO. 38115 OF 2008 (K)
====================
Dated this the 26[th]day of December, 2008
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
Petitioner submits that in the two buildings owned by him, the Government Lower Primary School, Chullinada is located. It is statedthat the rent in respect of the building has been fixed by theAssistant Executive Engineer, PWD, Buildings Division as per Ext.P1proceedings, which have been forwarded to the 3[rd] respondent byExt.P2. According to the petitioner for the period upto 31.08.2005,an amount of Rs.4,00,680/- is due.
2. It is stated that on account of the delay in paying theamount, petitioner has filed Ext.P3 representation to the respondentsand that even inspite of it, Ext.P1 has not been processed andpayments have not been made so far. It is in view of this grievance,the writ petition is filed praying for a direction to the 1[st] respondentto consider and pass orders on Ext.P3.
3. If as stated by the petitioner, non payment of the rentdue has been complained of, by filing Ext.P3, the 1[st] respondent ought to have considered the matter.
Since petitioner complains that Ext.P3 has not so far been considered, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 1[st]respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 and to take stepsof disbursement of amount actually due. This shall be done, asexpeditiously as possible at any rate within 8 weeks of production ofa copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition.
Rp
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE