Dina Abraham vs The Additional Inspector Of … on 19 February, 2008

Kerala High Court
Dina Abraham vs The Additional Inspector Of … on 19 February, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  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                                                                               -


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *