IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 8798 of 2007(V)
1. K.I.KURIAKOSE, S/O.ITTOOP, SECRETARY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ANGAMALY MUNICIPALITY,
... Respondent
2. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, ANGAMALY MUNICIPALITY
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT,
4. STATE OF KERALA,
5. M/S SIGN POST MEDIA,
For Petitioner :SRI.WILSON URMESE
For Respondent :SRI.SADCHITH.P.KURUP
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :28/03/2007
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C)No.8798 of 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated: 28th March, 2007
JUDGMENT
Alleging that there has been irregularities on the part of the
Municipality in the matter of awarding contract for installation of
sodium vapor lamps, the petitioner filed Ext.P3 complaint before the
third respondent, the Superintendent, Vigilance and Anti Corruption
Bureau, Central Range, Ernakulam. Immediately thereafter the
petitioner submitted Ext.P4 petitioner before the Government seeking
action under Section 57 of the Kerala Municipality Act for canceling
the resolution of the Municipality.
2. The 5th respondent who is the awardee of the work has filed
a detailed counter affidavit producing the agreement. According to
this counter affidavit, in execution of the works awarded, steps are
being taken.
3. The Municipality has also filed a counter affidavit wherein it
is contended that the present Writ Petition seeking a writ of
mandamus in respect of Ext.P4 which was filed just two days prior to
the institution of the Writ Petition is not maintainable.
4. Not that I do not find force in the submissions of
Mr.V.M.Kurian, Standing Counsel for the Municipality. But since the
learned Government Pleader submits that enquiry is already
W.P.C.No.8798/07 – 2 –
commenced by the third respondent on the basis of Ext.P3 complaint,
the third respondent will finalise the enquiry which he has started on
the basis of Ext.P3 immediately and forward the enquiry report to the
Government. The Government will thereupon take up Ext.P4, issue
notice to the petitioner, the Municipality and the 5th respondent, hear
all of them and take a decision on Ext.P4. It is needless to mention
that the Government will consider the contention of the Municipality
that the Government does not have jurisdiction to entertain a petition
in the nature of Ext.P4. Orders will be passed by the Government
within one month of receiving enquiry report from the third
respondent. The execution of the work by the 5th respondent will be
subject to any order which the Government will pass on Ext.P4.
The Writ Petition will stand disposed of as above.
srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE