Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Kerala High Court

M.B. Ajith vs The State Of Kerala on 28 June, 2010

Author: J.Chelameswar

Bench: J.Chelameswar, P.N.Ravindran

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 15542 of 2010(P)


1. M.B. AJITH, MUTHODAM,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

4. THE TAHSILDAR,

5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,

6. THE SECRETARY,

7. THE CHAIRMAN,

8. THE SECRETARY,

9. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR

                For Respondent  :SMT.K.K.THULASY BHAI,SC,POLLUTION C.BOA

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.J.CHELAMESWAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN

 Dated :28/06/2010

 O R D E R
           J.Chelameswar, CJ. & P.N.Ravindran, J.
            - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                    W.P(C).No. 15542 OF 2010
            - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                Dated this the 28th day of June, 2010

                               JUDGMENT

J.Chelameswar, CJ.

The writ petition is filed with prayers as follows:

"1. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1 to 5 respondents to issue appropriate order to prevent illegal conversion of paddy field into dry land in the 5th respondent's locality by the 7th respondent on the strength of Exts.P1 to P3 orders.
2. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing 3rd respondent to produce all the records leading to Exts.P1 to P3 and connected records before this Hon'ble Court.
3. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 3rd respondent to take necessary steps to reconvert the unauthorised conversion of the land by the 7th respondent on the strength of Ext.P1 and P3 orders."

In substance, the writ petition is filed challenging three orders, Exts.P1 to P3 dated 19.12.06, 29.03.07 and 15.05.07 respectively. It is evident from the above dates that the petitioner slept over for more than three years on this issue WP(C) No.15542 of 2010 -:2:- and now approached this Court. We are of the opinion that the writ petition is barred by laches and the same is dismissed at the admission stage.

J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice.

P.N.Ravindran, Judge.

ttb