High Court of KeralaWP(C)/19608/2015disposed of

Vincent Mathew v. State Of Kerala

2015-06-30Honourable Mr. Justice A.V.Ramakrishna Pillai3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE 2015/9TH ASHADHA, 1937 WP(C).No. 19608 of 2015 (A) ---------------------------- PETITIONER:

------------------- VINCENT MATHEW, S/O.MATHEW, AGED 65 YEARS, KALAPPURAYIL HOUSE, KOODARANJI P.O., KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673604.

BY ADVS.SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN SRI.SABU GEORGE RESPONDENT(S):

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

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

2. THE CHIEF FOOD AND SAFETY OFFICER, MOBILE VIGILANCE SQUAD, REGIONAL ANALITICAL LAB CAMPUS, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682030.

3. THE DISTRICT LICENSING AUTHORITY, FOOD AND SAFETY OFFICE, THRIPPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682301.

4. CORPORATION OF KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CORPORATION OFFICE, ERNAKULAM JETTY, PIN - 682011.

5. RAJEEVAN, VELLILAM THADATHIL, PROPRIETOR, NEW MALABAR RESTAURANT, NEAR AMRITA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES (AIMS), PONEKKARA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682041.

R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA R4 BY ADV. SRI.E.D.GEORGE,SC BY SRI.P.K.SOYUZ,SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

mbr/

WP(C).No. 19608 of 2015 (A) --------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

------------------------------------- EXHIBIT-P1:

TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23.5.2015. EXHIBIT-P2:

TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16.6.2015. EXHIBIT-P3:

TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20.6.2015. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

NIL.

//TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE mbr/

A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P(C) No.19608 of 2015 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 29th day of June, 2015

JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents 2 to 4 in stopping the functioning of the restaurant conducted by the 5th respondent, the petitioner has come up before this Court.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent corporation. As the learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his argument to the limited prayer for a direction to consider Exts.P1 to P3, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 2 to 4 to consider Exts.P1 to P3 and to take appropriate action after affording the petitioner and affected parties an opportunity of being heard within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/- A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE krj