C.H Meerannan v. State Of Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/23RD POUSHA, 1936 OP(Crl.).No. 281 of 2014 (Q) ----------------------------- IN C.C NOS.4/2011 TO 8/2011 BEFORE THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE, THRISSUR PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
---------------------- C.H MEERANNAN, AGED 68 YEARS, CHAIPARAMBIL HOUSE, NADACKAL P.O., ERATTUPETTA KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686124.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
-------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO HOME AND VIGILANCE ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2. THE VIGILANCE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF VIGILANCE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, KOTTAYAM-686001.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.P.MAYA THIS OP (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 1301-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP(Crl.).No. 281 of 2014 (Q) ----------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS ----------------------- EXHIBIT P1- COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9-10-2001 IN C.M.P.NO. 525/2001 OF THE ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE, THRISSUR. EXHIBIT P2- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 6-11-2003 IN WPC 19590/2003 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P3- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24-8-2005 IN WPC NO. 23669/2005 OF THIS HOB'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P4- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 10-3-2006 IN CON.CASE (C) NO. 291/2006 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS ---------------------- NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE ab
P.UBAID, J.
--------------------------------------- O.P(Crl)No. 281 of 2014 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of January, 2015
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner herein seeks a direction to the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kottayam for expeditious disposal of some cases of 2011, where he is the accused. Now there is a report from the learned Special Judge, Kottayam that ripe calender cases upto the year 2009 are being scheduled there, and that the total pendency there is 518 calender cases. In such a situation, it would be inappropriate for this Court to direct the learned trial judge to give priority to the petitioner's cases of 2011 when others are waiting for their turn for trial in the queue. However, if the petitioner has any genuine grievance or ground for priority in the matter of trial, he can approach the trial court itself with necessary application. With these observations this Original Petition is closed.
P.UBAID JUDGE ab