Musthafa vs Sulthan Bathery Block Panchayath on 8 November, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 33639 of 2010(D)


1. MUSTHAFA,S/O.PACKER,31 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SULTHAN BATHERY BLOCK PANCHAYATH,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE SECRETARY,SULTHAN BATHERY BLOCK

                For Petitioner  :SRI.RAFFEEKH.K

                For Respondent  :SRI.N.J.ANTONY,SC.,S.BATHERY B.PANCHAYA

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN

 Dated :08/11/2010

 O R D E R
                          P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
               -----------------------------------------
                     W.P(C).No.33639 of 2010
               -----------------------------------------
            Dated this the 8th day of November, 2010

                              JUDGMENT

The petitioner’s father had executed a work awarded to him

by the Sulthan Battery Grama Panchayat. The petitioner’s father

passed away on 15.8.2006. In this writ petition the petitioner

seeks a direction to the respondents to pay the sum of

Rs.4,00,814/-, which according to the petitioner represents the

balance amount payable by the Panchayat to his father.

2. A reading of the writ petition discloses that the

petitioner’s father, who had executed the work, is no more and

that the money, if any due to the petitioner’s father is money due

to his estate. The petitioner has no case is that he is the sole

legal heir of his father. If that be so the remedy of the petitioner

is to institute a suit in the competent civil court having jurisdiction

with all the other legal heirs on the party array for recovery of the

money allegedly due from the Panchayat. The petitioner cannot,

in my opinion, in the absence of the other legal heirs on the party

array, effectively prosecute this writ petition for recovery of the

W.P(C).No.33639 of 2010
-:2:-

money allegedly due to his father. I therefore find no grounds to

entertain this writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly

dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner and the other

legal heirs of the contractor, who had executed the work, to institute

an appropriate suit in the civil court having jurisdiction.

P.N.RAVINDRAN,
Judge.

ahg.

P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.

—————————

W.P(C).No.33639 of 2010

—————————-

JUDGMENT

8th November, 2010