High Court Kerala High Court

V.D.Rappai vs Roads And Bridges Development on 1 February, 2011

Kerala High Court
V.D.Rappai vs Roads And Bridges Development on 1 February, 2011
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 5280 of 2010(H)


1. V.D.RAPPAI, SON OF DEVASSY,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. ROADS AND BRIDGES DEVELOPMENT
                       ...       Respondent

2. GENERAL MANAGER, ROADS AND BRIDGES

3. KUNJU MUHAMMED, S/O.LATE MOHAMMED ALI,

4. P.K.ABDUL RAZZAK, S/O.KUNU MUHAMMED,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.ROY CHACKO

                For Respondent  :SRI.M.VIJAYA KUMAR, SC, RBDCK

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :01/02/2011

 O R D E R
                       ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
              --------------------------------------------------
                  W.P.(C) NO.5280 OF 2010(H)
              --------------------------------------------------
           Dated this the Ist day of February, 2011

                           J U D G M E N T

By Ext.P3 judgment rendered by this court in WP(c).

No.12330/2008 which was filed by respondents 3 and 4 herein,

this court directed the first respondent to treat Ext.P6 therein as a

show cause notice and decide in the matter after giving an

opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. In this writ

petition, the main complaint of the petitioner is that so far the

order as directed in Ext.P3 judgment has not been passed. It is

with this complaint the writ petition is filed.

2. Although, various contentions have been raised in the

counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent justifying their stand,

it is an admitted position that even as at present orders as

directed in Ext.P3 judgment have not been passed. In that view of

the matter all that is necessary is that the first respondent should

take a decision as directed in Ext.P3 with notice to the petitioner

herein and respondents 3 and 4 also, as expeditiously as possible

and at any rate within 3 weeks from the date of production of a

copy of the judgment. It is made clear that this court has not

WPC.No.5280 /2010
:2 :

enter into the merits of the controversy and the contentions

raised by both parties are left open.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/