Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
VIJU ABRAHAM, J
STANLY JOSE – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges prior order for lack of consideration of prior judgment. (Para 1) |
| 2. court requires reconsideration and mandates a new hearing with a specified timeline. (Para 2 , 3) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P6 order on a specific contention that in spite of the specific direction issued by this Court in Ext.P4 judgment, directing the 3rd respondent to consider Ext.P3 request submitted by the petitioner, a hearing was conducted by the 4th respondent and orders have been passed by the 3rd respondent vide Ext.P6. Such a specific contention is raised in Ground (b) of this writ petition. Though a counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 2 and 4, there is no answer to the said averment.
2. Heard the learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation as well.
3. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the matter requires reconsideration.
Accordingly, Ext.P6 is set aside with a consequential direction to the 3rd respondent to hear the petitioner as well as respondents 5 and 6 and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law, within an out
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
