High Court of KeralaWP(C)/31884/2015disposed of

K.P. Manoharan v. The Commissioner

2015-10-20Honourable Mr.Justice K.Vinod Chandran3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2015/28TH ASWINA, 1937 WP(C).No. 31884 of 2015 (I) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

----------------------- K.P. MANOHARAN, AGED 60 YEARS S/O CHANDUKUTTY KEDARAM, KOZHUR P.O ERUVATTY, VIA KADIRUR THALASSERY, KANUR DIST. 670 642 BY ADVS.SRI.V.MADHUSUDHANAN SRI.M.SREEBHADRAN RESPONDENT(S):

---------------------------- 1.

THE COMMISSIONER MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD KOZHIKODE - 673 006 2.

THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE (DEVASWOM) DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THRIVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001 R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.R.SUNIL, SC, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.J. RAJASREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-10-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 31884 of 2015 (I) APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:

EXT.P1 COPY OF THE ORDER NO. G.O(GEN) NO. 5630/2012/RD THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM DTD. 1.10.12 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P2 COPY OF REPRESENTATION DTD. 8.10.12 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXT.P3 COPY OF THE ORDER NO. H-7-7071/2012/M.D.B DTD. 8.3.13 ISSUED BY THE 1S RESPONDENT.

EXT.P4 COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 19.4.13 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXT.P5 COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DTD. 26.5.13 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXT.P6 COPY OF THE HEARING NOTICE DTD. 20.8.13 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:

NIL // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE.

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

===================== W.P.(C) No.31884 of 2015 - I ====================== Dated this the 20th day of October, 2015

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is aggrieved with the non-consideration of Ext.P5 revision filed before the 2nd respondent. The revision is filed on 26.05.2013.

2. In such circumstance, the 2nd respondent definitely will have to look at the revision filed before it and consider the same in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing, at any rate within a period of three months from the date of hearing. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observations on merits, which the 2nd respondent will consider, in accordance with law.

The writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/- K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE SB/20/ 10 /2015 // true copy // P.A to Judge.