Rasiya M vs The State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 20067 Ker

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                   PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 2ND ASWINA, 1943
                        WP(C) NO. 20117 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:

               RASIYA M.,
               AGED 60 YEARS
               D/O. BAVUNNI MOOPPAN, MANDAYAPURATH HOUSE,
               KALPAKANCHERRY P.O.,
               MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

               BY ADV K.RAKESH



RESPONDENT/S:

    1          THE STATE OF KERALA
               REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
               GENERAL EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, PALAYAM,
               TRIVANDRUM 695 001.

    2          THE DIRECTOR OF GENERALA EDUCATION,
               GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, JAGATHI,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014.

    3          THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
               OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
               UPHILL, MALAPPURAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 676 505.


        THIS     WRIT   PETITION     (CIVIL)    HAVING    COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION       ON   24.09.2021,     THE     COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                              -2-
W.P.(C). No. 20117 of 2021



                                     JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

"(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, orders of directions directing the respondents 1 to 3 to finalise proceedings pursuant to Exhibit P3 application as expeditiously as possible.

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writs, orders of directions directing the 2 nd and 3rd respondent to fix the fair rent for the building of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible."

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that even though Ext.P3

application is filed for fixation of fair rent, the same is not considered by

the 2nd respondent. The learned counsel submitted that he will be satisfied,

if a direction is issued to the 2 nd respondent to consider Ext.P3 and take

appropriate steps in accordance with law, within a time frame.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the

learned Government Pleader for the 2nd respondent.

4. After hearing both sides, I think a direction can be issued to

the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3, in accordance

with law.

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of in the following manner:

(1) The 2nd respondent will consider Ext.P3 and pass

W.P.(C). No. 20117 of 2021

appropriate orders, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

(2) The petitioner will produce a copy of this writ petition together with a copy of the judgment before the 2nd respondent for necessary compliance.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

das

W.P.(C). No. 20117 of 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20117/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE DEED EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA DATED 25.10.2017.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 18.5.2017 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER OF PWD BUILDING SECTION TIRUR.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER IN PRESCRIBED PROFORMA BEFORE THE 3RDE RESPONDENT DATED 30.8.2017.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 22.8.2020.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE DPI DATED 30.12.2020.

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 8.1.2021 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT.