IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 9201 of 2010(A)
1. T.E.KASTHURI RANGANATHAN, 22/132,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SECRETARY,
... Respondent
2. PALAKKAD MUNCIPALITY,
3. MUNICIPAL ENGINEER,
4. T.R.SUBRAMANIAM, 22/133,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.ANANTHAKRISHNAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :19/03/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
-------------------
W.P.(C).9201/2010
--------------------
Dated this the 19th day of March, 2010
JUDGMENT
Petitioner’s complaint is that though the 2nd respondent is
bound to take action in terms of the directions of the Tribunal,
nothing has been done. It is stated that complaining of the
above, he submitted Ext.P2 reminder which also did not evoke
any response. It is with this allegation, the writ petition is
filed.
2. Learned Standing Counsel enters appearance and seeks
time to get instructions in the matter. Having regard to the
nature of the directions that I propose to issue, I do not think it
necessary to issue notice to the respondents by adjourning the
case for the Standing Counsel to get instructions.
3. If as stated by the petitioner Ext.P1 order of the Tribunal in
Appeal No.477/2009 has become final, necessarily the 1st
respondent has to carry out the directions of the Tribunal. Since
the petitioner has raised this complaint by filing Ext.P2 before
W.P.(C).9201/10
2
the Secretary, I direct the 1st respondent to take action on Ext.P2
in the light of Ext.P1 and with notice to the petitioner and the 4th
respondent. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at
any rate, within six weeks of production of a copy of this
judgment along with the copy of the writ petition.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC,
Judge
mrcs