Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.18 seconds)

P. Mohanan Pillai vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 23 February, 2007

3. The first contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that the findings in Ext.P19 order issued under Section 32 are, pertaining to acts/omissions committed during the period when the previous Committee were in office. It is stated that Section 32 does not contemplate supersession of the present Committee for acts or omissions of previous WP(c).No.31430/08 3 committees. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was contradicted by the learned Government Pleader referring to Section 32 itself and contending that section only makes reference to committees and therefore it is possible to take action against the committee in office. She place reliance on the judgment of this court in Mohanan V. State of Kerala (2004(2) KLT 873). However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the Division Bench judgment in W.A. No.1363/04, where the judgment relied on by the learned Government Pleader has been set aside. The Division Bench judgment, in so far as it is relevant, reads as under.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 348 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1