Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
ADV. K.T PRAKASHAN – Appellant
Versus
THE MEDICAL OFFICER – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition seeks to quash due to lack of hearing. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court observed procedural flaws in the order. (Para 3 , 4) |
JUDGMENT
The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:
"i. To issue a writ of certiorari or such other appropriate writ order or direction calling for the records relating to Exhibit P3 and quash the same.
ii. To dispense with the production of translation of vernacular documents iii. To grant such other reliefs that may be deemed just and proper by this honourable court and to allow this writ petition with costs."
[SIC]
2. The 2nd respondent Panchayat issued Ext.P3 stating that there is pollution to the well of the 3rd respondent because of a septic tank situated in the premises of the petitioner. The main grievance of the petitioner is that Ext.P3 is an order passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Panchayat and the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent.
4. This Court perused Ext.P3. A perusal of Ext.P3 would not show that it is an order passed after giving
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
