Suresh Babu K.S v. The State Of Kerala

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2015/25TH ASHADHA, 1937 WP(C).No. 22027 of 2012 (C) ---------------------------- PETITIONER:

------------------- SURESH BABU K.S, S/O.SWAMINATHAN, KOOTUPATH HOUSE, MUNDOOR (PO), PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

BY ADV. SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ RESPONDENT(S):

----------------------------

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.

2. THE STATE HIGH LEVEL COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.

3. THE PALAKKAD DISTRICT EXPERT LEVEL COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM PIN-676505.

4. THE PATTAMBI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTAMBI PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-679303.

R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MANOJ.P.KUNJACHAN R4 BY ADV. SRI.SAJU J.VALLYARA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

vmr.

WP(C).No. 22027 of 2012 (C) ------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:

---------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1- A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 30683/2010 DATED 08/08/2011. EXHIBIT P2- A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 04/07/2012.

EXHIBIT P3- A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 19/07/2012.

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS :

NIL ---------------------------------- /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE vmr.

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

===================== W.P.(C) No.22027 of 2012 - C ====================== Dated this the 16th day of July, 2015

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner in the above writ petition contends that Ext.P1 judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court is not being implemented by the 4th respondent, the Pattambi Grama Panchayat and the respondents 2 and 3 for reason of they being not parties in the aforesaid judgment. The 2nd respondent is a party in the judgment as above referred. The petitioners prayer is that, Ext.P1 has to be applied all over the State. If that was the prayer, then the petitioner should have moved so before the Division Bench and cannot approach this Court again with a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In such circumstance, the writ petition would stand dismissed.

Sd/- K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE SB // true copy // P.A to Judge.