High Court Kerala High Court

M/S. York Constructions vs State Of Kerala on 14 August, 2007

Kerala High Court
M/S. York Constructions vs State Of Kerala on 14 August, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA No. 2008 of 2007()


1. M/S. YORK CONSTRUCTIONS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,

3. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,

4. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (R.R.),

5. VILLAGE OFFICER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SABU GEORGE

                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

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

 Dated :14/08/2007

 O R D E R
                          H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.T.SANKARAN,J.
                         ----------------------------------------------------
                                 W.A. NO. 2008 OF 2007
                         ----------------------------------------------------
                          Dated this the 14th August, 2007

                                     JUDGMENT

H.L.DATTU, C.J.

Exts.P4 and P5 are the demand notices issued by the respondents inter

alia directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.13 lakhs. These demand notices

are the subject matters of W.P.(C) No.19414 of 2007.

2. The learned single Judge while entertaining the Writ Petition has stayed

Exts.P4 and P5 notices issued by the respondents, subject to the petitioner

depositing a sum of Rs.2 lakhs within one month from the date of the order. Being

aggrieved by the said interim order passed by this court, the petitioner has filed

this appeal.

3. Exts.P4 and P5 demand notices are the subject matters of the Writ

Petition. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the Court has thought it fit to

stay the demand notices subject to certain conditions. These are all discretionary

orders passed by the learned Judges of this Court in exercise of their powers

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Normally, this Court will not interfere

with the interim orders passed by this Court unless those interim orders are either

arbitrary, illegal or irregular. We do not see any such irregularity or illegality in the

interim order so passed by the learned single Judge. Therefore, interference of

the said interim order is not called for. Therefore, the Writ Appeal requires to be

rejected and it is rejected.

Ordered accordingly.

(H.L.DATTU)
Chief Justice

(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge
ahz/

. NO.

:: 2 ::