High Court Kerala High Court

Vijayakumar P.C vs Travancore Devaswom Board on 28 March, 2007

Kerala High Court
Vijayakumar P.C vs Travancore Devaswom Board on 28 March, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 10850 of 2007(N)


1. VIJAYAKUMAR P.C.,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,
                       ...       Respondent

2. DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.SREEKUMAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.K.DENESAN

 Dated :28/03/2007

 O R D E R
                                 K.K.DENESAN, J.

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

                         WP(C).No. 10850 OF 2007 N

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

                      Dated this the 28th March, 2007.



                                            JUDGMENT

The petitioner is working as Deputy Devaswom

Commissioner in the service of the first respondent. The

immediate provocation for the petitioner to approach this

Court is the order issued by the Secretary of the

respondent-Devaswom directing the Devaswom Commissioner to

recover differential amount in the auction conducted for

allotting plots of land temporarily by granting licence and

to initiate action against the delinquent officers based on

the enquiry to be conducted. Ext.P9 shows that there was a

reduction of Rs.7,42,150/- in the auction amount for the

current year when compared to the previous year.

2. Standing counsel for the respondents submits that

action pursuant to Ext.P9 will be taken strictly in

conformity with the procedure prescribed therefor and the

writ petition challenging Ext.P9 is liable to be dismissed

as premature.

3. From a reading of Ext.P9 it is possible to

entertain an apprehension that the Devaswom Commissioner

has been directed by the respondent-Board to take such

action as is necessary to recover the differential amount

from some of the officers including the Deputy Devaswom

WPC 10850/2007 2

Commissioner. Since the counsel for the respondents

submits that without issuing notice and without following

the procedure prescribed by law, no adverse action will be

taken against the petitioner or for that matter against any

other person concerned, I think the writ petition can be

disposed of recording that submission. This will be relief

for the petitioner, for the time being. Accordingly the

writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to

take action, if any, pursuant to Ext.P9 only after issuing

notice to the persons concerned considering explanation or

written statement of defence, if any, filed in reply to

that and following the procedure prescribed by the rules.

K.K.DENESAN

Judge

jj