High Court Kerala High Court

Adithya S. vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 15 July, 2010

Kerala High Court
Adithya S. vs State Of Kerala Represented By The on 15 July, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 22166 of 2010(U)


1. ADITHYA S.,AGED 13 YEARS(MINOR),
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1.  STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, TRIVANDRUM.

3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE,

4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE,

5. LALITHA, AGED 52, KIZHEKKEKODAYIL,

6. DHANYA, AGED 20, KIZHEKKEKODAYIL,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.JOHN BRITTO

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :15/07/2010

 O R D E R
                      ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                     ================
                 W.P.(C) NO. 22166 OF 2010 (U)
                =====================

             Dated this the 15th day of July, 2010

                          J U D G M E N T

Petitioner claims to be the daughter of late Sri.VIjaya Kumar,

who was a Driver in the Excise Department. According to the

petitioner, consequent on the death of Sri.Vijaya Kumar, she is

entitled to a share in the benefits that are due and claimed the

same by filing Ext.P5 before the 2nd respondent. Subsequently,

the Accountant General issued Ext.P7 stating that the benefits

have been disbursed to the 5th respondent. Again the petitioner

pursued the matter by filing Ext.P8 before the 2nd respondent.

From Ext.P9, it would appear that on the directions of the 2nd

respondent, the 4th respondent called the petitioner for hearing.

According to the petitioner, in pursuance to Ext.P9, both parties

were heard by the 4th respondent. However, as orders on Ext.P8

have not been passed, this writ petition is filed.

2. From the facts as pleaded by the petitioner, it is

therefore evident that pursuant to Ext.P8, parties have been

heard by the 4th respondent and orders are not passed.

3. Therefore, at this stage, what is required is that the 4th

WPC No. 22166/10
:2 :

respondent should forward the proceedings to the 2nd respondent,

and the 2nd respondent should pass orders on Ext.P8. This the 2nd

respondent shall do, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate

within 8 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment.

4. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before

respondents 2 and 4 for compliance.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp