High Court Kerala High Court

K.Sivaprasad vs Union Of India on 25 June, 2007

Kerala High Court
K.Sivaprasad vs Union Of India on 25 June, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA No. 1261 of 2007()


1. K.SIVAPRASAD, S/O.KARUNAKARAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. UNION OF INDIA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE

3. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS,

4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM.

5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

6. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SIBY MATHEW

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN

 Dated :25/06/2007

 O R D E R
                       H.L. DATTU, C.J. &  K.T. SANKARAN, J.

                         ...................................................................................

                                      W.A. No. 1261   OF  2007

                  ...................................................................................

                                  Dated this the  25th June, 2007




                                            J U D G M E N T

H.L. Dattu, C.J.:

This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single

Judge in W.P.(C) 25986 of 2006 dated 10th November, 2006. In the Writ

Petition, the petitioner had sought for several directions. The learned

single Judge has rejected the Writ Petition, since the learned single Judge

was of the opinion that those directions cannot be given. That is how,

the petitioner is before us in this Writ Appeal.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner is not in

a position to inform us about the statutory obligation that is cast upon the

respondents to entertain this application for removal of accumulated

sand in the dam area . Secondly the petitioner is also not in a position to

tell us, as to whether there is any right for the petitioner under the

statutory provisions.

3. In the absence of a right and in the absence of corresponding

obligation on the part of the respondents, the mandamus sought for,

cannot be granted by this court. Keeping this aspect of the matter in

W.A. No. 1261 OF 2007

2

view, in our opinion, the learned single Judge has rightly rejected the

Writ Petition. Therefore, no interference is called for in this Writ Appeal

and it requires to be rejected. Accordingly, it is rejected.

Ordered accordingly.

H.L. DATTU,

CHIEF JUSTICE.

K.T. SANKARAN,

JUDGE.

lk