High Court Kerala High Court

M. Balakrishnan vs The State Of Kerala on 17 August, 2007

Kerala High Court
M. Balakrishnan vs The State Of Kerala on 17 August, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 3386 of 2004(C)


1. M. BALAKRISHNAN, S/O. NARAYANAN
                      ...  Petitioner
2. V.C. KURIAKOSE, S/O. CHACKO,
3. BABY P.V. S/O. VARGHESE,
4. SURESH K.G., S/O. C.S. GOPALA PILLAI

                        Vs



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

2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL)

3. THE SULTHAN'S BATTERY CO-OPERATIVE

4. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF

                For Petitioner  :SRI.DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.B.S.SWATHI KUMAR,SC.CO.OP.E COMMN.

The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH

 Dated :17/08/2007

 O R D E R
                            KURIAN JOSEPH J.
                 ----------------------------------------------
                       W.P.(C) No.3386 of 2004
                 ----------------------------------------------
                       Dated 17th August, 2007.
                             J U D G M E N T

The writ petition is filed mainly with the following

prayers :-

(i) “Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or
direction quashing Exts.P5 and P8 notices as illegal and
unconstitutional;

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order
or direction to compel the 3rd respondent to consider and pass
appropriate orders on Ext.P7 representation of the petitioners.”

The issue pertains to the steps taken by the Bank for recovery of the

unauthorised petrol allowance drawn by the petitioners. Since the

Bank has already taken a decision, there is no point in directing the

Bank to consider Ext.P7. The decision is actually taken by the Joint

Registrar. Therefore, in case the petitioners have a case that they

have not been heard in the matter, it will be open to them either to

approach the Joint Registrar for considering the matter after hearing

them or it will be open to them to pursue the appellate remedy before

the Government. In order to enable the petitioners to work out the

remedy as above, the recovery pursuant to the impugned notices shall

be deferred for a further period of six months.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE.

tgs

WP NO.3386/04 2