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 1, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

V.P. Manuel vs The State Of Kerala on 13 April, 2015

Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque

Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque

        

 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                            PRESENT:

                   THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

            WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/30TH POUSHA, 1937

                                  WP(C).No. 21185 of 2015 (W)
                                      ----------------------------

PETITIONER :
---------------------

            V.P. MANUEL, AGED 78 YEARS
            S/O.PATHROSE, VAARIKKADU HOUSE, H.NO.9/333
            FORT KOCHI, KOCHI-682001.

            BY ADV. SRI.ARUN CHANDRAN

RESPONDENTS :
---------------------------

        1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
            REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
            DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL JUSTICE, SECRETARIAT
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

        2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
            ERNAKULAM, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD
            ERNAKULAM-682 030.

        3. THE CITY POLICE COMMISSIONER,
            ERNAKULAM, NEAR POLICE CLUB, KOCHI-682 011.

        4. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
            FORT KOCHI, KOCHI-682001.

        5. TAHASILDAR,
            KOCHI TALUK, FORT KOCHI, KOCHI-682001.

        6. VILLAGE OFFICER,
            FORT KOCHI VILLAGE, KOCHI-682001.

        7. VILLAGE OFFICER,
            RAMESWARAM VILLAGE, PALLURUTHY,
            KOCHI-682006.

            R1 TO R7 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI. BIJU MEENATTOOR

            THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-01-2016,
            THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Mn
                                                                           ...2/-

WP(C).No. 21185 of 2015 (W)
-----------------------------------------

                                                      APPENDIX

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :
-------------------------------------

EXT. P1              TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACTS OF THE PURAMBOKE REGISTER,
                     SKETCH AND JAMABANDY REGISTER OF THE RAMESWARAM
                     VILLAGE OFFICE OBTAINED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION
                     ACT.

EXT. P2              PHOTOS TAKEN FROM VARIOUS ANGLES TO SHOW THE GRAVITY OF
                     THE OBSTRUCTION.

EXT. P3              TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 13.04.2015 PREFERRED
                     BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXT. P4              TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BEFORE 3RD
                     RESPONDENT DATED 13/04/2015.

EXT. P5              TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.16/2010.

EXT. P6              TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPTS OBTAINED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE
                     2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS ON SUBMITTING THE COMPLAINTS.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :                               NIL
--------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                   //TRUE COPY//




                                                                   P.A. TO JUDGE
Mn



                    A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
          *****************************************************************************
                         W.P.(C) No.21185 of 2015
         ******************************************************************************
              Dated this the 20th day of January, 2016

                                   JUDGMENT

The petitioner approached this Court on account of non- consideration of his complaint by the District Magistrate. He is a senior citizen. His case is that his vehicle parking has been obstructed. Therefore, the petitioner has been deprived of his legal right to use the public way.

2. In this matter, a report has been filed by the fourth respondent. In the report, it is stated that the right claimed by the petitioner belongs to one Joseph Antony and the petitioner is having a width of 1.5m vehicular access through the Corporation road.

This Court is of the view that no relief can be granted to the petitioner as the complaint as such is not maintainable W.P.(C) No.21185 of 2015 2 under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. It is open for the petitioner either to approach the Revenue Divisional Officer or the civil court concerned for redressal of his grievances. With that liberty, this writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE ln