High Court Kerala High Court

Sri.V.Thankachan Mathunni … vs State Of Kerala Represented By on 23 May, 2008

Kerala High Court
Sri.V.Thankachan Mathunni … vs State Of Kerala Represented By on 23 May, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 15239 of 2008(S)


1. SRI.V.THANKACHAN MATHUNNI GEEVARGHESE,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER,

3. THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.A.SALIL NARAYANAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI

 Dated :23/05/2008

 O R D E R
                    H.L.DATTU, C.J. & M.C. HARI RANI, J.
              ------------------------------------------------------------------
                           W.P.(C) No.15239 of 2008-S
                   -------------------------------------------------------
                     Dated, this the 23rd day of May, 2008

                                      JUDGMENT

H.L.Dattu, C.J.

The residents of a labour colony in Kailasapara is before

us in this Public Interest Litigation, inter alia seeking a direction to the

respondents to appoint an Authorised Retail Distributor at a place which is

nearer to their locality.

(2). Before approaching this Court, the petitioner has filed a

representation dated 10-5-2008. Even before the authorities could act upon

the representation so filed, the petitioner has rushed to this Court for the

aforesaid relief.

(3). In our opinion, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is

premature.

(4). In the instant case, the petitioner is requesting a writ in

the nature of mandamus to the respondents. For granting a prayer for

mandamus, there must be a demand for performing the act sought to be

enforced and a refusal to perform it or if there is inordinate delay in

considering the request. This principle has some exception in certain cases.

(5). In the instant case, as we have already noticed, the

representation filed by the petitioner is dated 10-5-2008. The authorities do

require some breathing time to consider the request made in the

representation. We cannot expect the authorities to act so swiftly and

WPC 15239/2008 -2-

answer the representation filed by the petitioner. In that view of the matter,

for the present, we decline to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ

petition is rejected. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach

this Court, if need arises in future.

Ordered accordingly.

(H.L.DATTU)
CHIEF JUSTICE

(M.C.HARI RANI)
JUDGE

MS/dk.