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 0]

Kerala High Court

Kerala State Scheduled Caste & Schedule vs K.Balagopal on 3 March, 2011

Author: J.Chelameswar

Bench: J.Chelameswar, Antony Dominic

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 5885 of 2011(S)


1. KERALA STATE SCHEDULED CASTE & SCHEDULE
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. K.BALAGOPAL,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

3. THE MAYOR,

4. CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,

5. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.K.MOHANAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.J.CHELAMESWAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :03/03/2011

 O R D E R
        J.Chelameswar, C.J. & Antony Dominic, J.
         - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                    W.P.(C) No. 5885 OF 2011
         - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
              Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2011

                            JUDGMENT

J.Chelameswar, C.J.

The writ petition is filed with the prayer as follows:

"i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, commanding the respondents 2 to 5 to instantly place the 1st respondent under suspension pending conclusion of the trial in Crime No.1033/10 of Nemom Police Station, in which he is an accused.
ii) Order respondents 2 to 5 cost of this litigation.
iii) Issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case."

2. Such a prayer is made by the petitioner in the background of certain allegations made against the 1st respondent. Based on such allegations, admittedly Crime No.1033 of 2010 of Nemom Police Station is registered. Further details of the writ petition may not be necessary for the reason that when the matter is taken up today, the learned Government Pleader on instructions stated that the 1st respondent has already been kept under suspension pending WP(C) No. 585 of 2011 -:2:- departmental enquiry into various allegations which are the basis on which the instant writ petition is filed.

In the circumstances the writ petition, in our view, has become infructuous and is accordingly dismissed as infructuous.

J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice.

Antony Dominic, Judge.

ttb