IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 3895 of 2008(L)
1. DINA ABRAHAM, W/O.BINOD ABRAHAM,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE ADDITIONAL INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES,
... Respondent
2. KUNJAMMA.A. PALAL, W/O.DR.ALIAS PALAL,
3. K.VEERANKUTTY, PALAL WOOD INDUSTRIES,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :19/02/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
--------------------------
W.P.(C)No. 3895 OF 2008
-----------------------------
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2008
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner submits that her deceased father was the licensee of a
saw mill by name Palal Wood Industries at Ottappalam. According to
the petitioner on the death of her father, she and the other children of
the deceased along with the 2nd respondent, mother, inherited the mill.
But, however, the 2nd respondent without the consent of the other
legal representatives transferred the saw mill to the 3rd respondent.
On account of this, the petitioner had lodged Exhibit P6 complaint to
the first respondent. According to the petitioner, the 1st respondent
directed her to produce certain documents by issuing Exhibit P7 notice
and that those documents were also produced. Complaining that the
enquiry initiated on Exhibit P6 remains inconclusive, this writ petition
has been filed.
2. On instructions, the learned Government Pleader submits
that after receipt of Exhibit P6, notice was issued to the 2nd respondent
to appear before the 1st respondent on 16.1.2008 and as she failed to
turn up, notice has been issued again. It is also stated that the licence
stands renewed till 2010 which submission is contradicted by the
learned counsel for the petitioner.
W.P.(C)No. 3895/08 2
3. Irrespective of the controversy that raised by either side
before me, since admittedly enquiry on Exhibit P6 has been initiated by
the 1st respondent, it is for the 1st respondent to conclude the same as
expeditiously as possible, after hearing the parties likely to be affected by
the outcome of the enquiry. Now that the 1st respondent has issued
notice to the petitioner and 2nd respondent also, I direct the 1st
respondent to conclude the enquiry as expeditiously as possible, at any
rate within eight weeks from the date of production of a copy of this
judgment.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.
dsn -
