Back
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S.
Union Territory Of Lakshadweep Represented By Its Administrator – Appellant
Versus
Salmikoya K. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Anil K. Narendran, J.
These appeals arise out of the interim orders dated 01.11.2024 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.38200 of 2024 and W.P.(C)No.38174 of 2024. The appellants are respondents 1 to 4 in those writ petitions. The 5th respondent in those writ petitions, namely, Lakshadweep Coastal Zone Management Authority, is arrayed as the 2nd respondent in these writ appeals.
2. W.P.(C)No.38200 of 2024 is one filed by the 1st respondent in W.A.No.1780 of 2024 seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P5 communication dated 24.06.2024 issued by the 2nd appellant District Collector to the 3rd appellant Director, Department of Tourism Development to the extent it allots 30,000 sq.m. of land (southern side of Thinnakkara) to the Department of Tourism for the purpose of development, operation, maintenance and management of Tent City at Thinnakkara Island. The petitioner has also sought for a declaration that the 1st appellant Union Territory of Lakshadweep Administration has no manner of any right, title or interest over the accreted land allotted to the 3rd appellant under Ext.P5. The documents marked as Exts.P2, P2(a) and P2(b) are copies of rough pattas (R.P.Nos.4544
Writ appeals against interim orders are maintainable if they substantially affect the rights of the parties, as clarified under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act.
An ‘order’ obviously cannot include mere procedural orders of adjournment, admission of writ, summoning of documents or witnesses, or directing local inspection etc. which orders do not seriously aff....
Point of law: Interim order of Single – Appeal not maintainable - Character of the ad interim order would continue to be the same until an adjudication is made by the irrespective of the fact as to w....
An injunction order loses its efficacy upon the transfer of a case to a tribunal with jurisdiction, rendering subsequent actions not contemptuous.
The State Government does not have the power to review its own orders unless such power is specifically conferred by statute. The State Government cannot exercise its power of review after a long del....
Judicial directions on land assignment must be within the scope of the writ petition, and any extraneous observations cannot be upheld.
The High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by quasi-judicial authorities in the absence of any jurisdictional error or patent perversity.
Res judicata bars re-litigation of settled ownership claims; significant delays in legal challenges can lead to dismissal of writ petitions.
The court emphasized the statutory right under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act and the self-contained nature of the Act in regulating contempt proceedings.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
