A.C. Korath vs The Managing Director on 6 April, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 6833 of 2009(Y)


1. A.C. KORATH, S/O. CHERIATH, ALUKKA
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SECRETARY, COCHIN INTERNATIONAL,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.WILSON URMESE

                For Respondent  :SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SC, KIAS LTD.

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :06/04/2009

 O R D E R
                        ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                   -------------------------
                      W.P.(C.) No.6833 of 2009
              ---------------------------------
               Dated, this the 6th day of April, 2009

                           J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is a land acquisition evictee. It is stated that the

1st respondent had agreed to provide taxi permits to such of those

eligible evictees or their nominees. According to the petitioner, he

made an application, and eventually Ext.P3 list was prepared and he

was included at Sl.No.24. But, it is stated that since he did not have

a badge, he was not issued the taxi permit. Therefore, as permitted

by the authorities, he nominated his nephew, one Mr.Thankachan.

Ext.P4 is the nomination. Ext.P5 is the consent letter and Ext.P6 is

the badge of his nephew. Despite long lapse of time the

respondents have not taken a decision thereon, the writ petition has

been filed.

2. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, they

have admitted of having received the nomination made by the

petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner’s claim, will be considered

along with other similar claimants.

3. Now that since the respondents have in their counter

WP(C) No.6833/2009
-2-

affidavit accepted their willingness to consider the case of the

petitioner, substantially the grievance of the petitioner stands

redressed.

4. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the

1st respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner for issue of

taxi permit to his nephew along with others, similarly situated. The

claim shall be considered and final orders shall be passed as

expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months of

production of a copy of this judgment.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg