Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
S.MANIKUMAR, CJ, SHAJI P.CHALY, J
RAMANATHAN.A – Appellant
Versus
THE DIRECTOR, AKSHAYA, KERALA STATE IT MISSION – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. process of fee collection and remittance (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. procedural arguments against termination (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. responsibilities of akshaya centre entrepreneurs (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. conclusion on the legality of the termination (Para 15 , 23) |
| 5. court's validation of administrative decisions (Para 22) |
JUDGMENT
S. Manikumar, C.J.
Before the writ court, the following reliefs sought for by the appellant has been declined:-
“i. Call for records leading to Exhibit P5 and Quash the same by a writ of Certiorari or any other writ, direction or order;
ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing respondents to reconsider the matter after conducting an independent enquiry into the complaint evidenced by Exhibit P2.”
2. It is thus challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment of the writ court, captioned appeal is preferred.
3. Short facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as hereunder:-
4. Appellant is the entrepreneur of an Akshaya Centre No.PKD166 located at Krishna Road, Pirayari, Palakkad, which was commenced in the year 2008.
5. A student by name Leo Babu, the 5th respondent, who applied for admission to
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
