IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 15952 of 2007(S)
1. THOMASKUTTY,S/O.ABRAHAM, AGED 34 YEARS.
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. CONSERVARTOR OF FORESTS (INSPECTION AND
3. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, VIGILANCE
4. P.PUGAZHENDI, DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF
5. P.K/.ASIF, RANGE OFFICER, FOREST RESOURC
For Petitioner :SMT.DAISY A.PHILIPOSE
For Respondent :SRI.M.C.JOHN
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.S.R.BANNURMATH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH
Dated :29/06/2009
O R D E R
S.R. Bannurmath, C.J. & Kurian Joseph, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No. 15952 OF 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this, the 29th day of June, 2009
JUDGMENT
Kurian Joseph, J.
This public interest litigation is filed with the following
prayer:
“issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st
respondent to take immediate action on the basis of
Exthibit.P1 by initiating appropriate disciplinary
proceedings against respondents No.4 and 5, in
accordance with law.”
2. The issue pertains to the alleged illegal action taken
by the party respondents for construction of a road through
the forest. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit in
which it is stated that appropriate action has already been
taken against the 5th respondent and action against the 4th
respondent is pending finalisation.
3. Learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 submits
that the writ petition itself is misconceived and ill-motivated.
It is further submitted that in view of Ext.R4(b) judgment of
W.P.(C) No. 15952/07
-:2:-
the Division Bench of this Court, the issue does not survive at all.
Though these are disputed by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, we do not think that this Court at this stage need go
into all these aspects since the matter in issue before us is only
the inaction on the part of the Government in taking appropriate
action against 4th and 5th respondents. Justification for the same
or the legality of such action is a matter to be pursued by the
affected parties in appropriate proceedings. Therefore, without
prejudice to the liberty to the 4th and 5th respondents to pursue
their right, this writ petition is closed.
It is made clear that we have not referred to any of the
contentions taken by both sides and all those contentions are left
open.
S.R. Bannurmath,
Chief Justice.
Kurian Joseph,
Judge.
ttb
W.P.(C) No. 15952/07
-:3:-