High Court of KeralaWP(C)/26894/2015disposed of

Faseea Abdul Salam v. The Kalamassdrey Municipality

2015-09-08Honourable Mr.Justice V.Chitambaresh3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/17TH BHADRA, 1937 WP(C).No. 26894 of 2015 (J) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

----------------- FASEENA ABDUL SALAM, AGED 37 YEARS W/O.ABDUL SALAM, MANAKKATTU HOUSE, H.M.T.COLONY P.O. KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683503.

BY ADVS.SRI.K.ABDUL JAWAD SRI.MATHEW A KUZHALANADAN SMT.V.K.ANJU RESPONDENT(S):

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

1. THE KALAMASSDREY MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KALAMASSERY ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683503.

2. THE SECRETARY KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY, KALAMASSERY ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683503.

R BY SRI.M.K.ABOOBACKER,SC KALAMASSERY MUNCIPALITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 26894 of 2015 (J) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS --------------------------- P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL ORDER AND NOTICE DT.10-10-2014 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.

P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.29-4-15 IN APPEAL NO.1247/14 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DT.4-9-2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT.

P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DT.4-9-15 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.

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

V.CHITAMBARESH, J.

--------------------- W.P (C) No.26894 of 2015 --------------------- Dated this the 8th day of September, 2015

J U D G M E N T

It is true that Ext.P3 objection was not filed to Ext.P1 provisional order within the time permitted in Ext.P2 order. But then the petitioner has a contention that his counsel suffering from brain haemorrhage did not inform him about the implications of Ext.P2 order in time.

2. Interest of justice will be met by directing the second respondent to consider Ext.P3 objection filed to Ext.P1 provisional order on merits within a period of one month after due notice. Needless to say that the petitioner shall be afforded an opportunity of being heard as directed in Ext.P2 order.

The Writ Petition is disposed of.

Sd/- V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge.

nj.