Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 1933 Ker
Judgement Date : 18 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 29TH MAGHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 4268 OF 2011
PETITIONER:
A.ABDUL RASHEED
43 YEARS, NELLIKKATHODI HOUSE, MUTHUVALLOOR PO,,
KONDOTTY(VIA),MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV SRI.U.K.DEVIDAS
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE SECRETARY
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PANCHAYATH,MALAPPURAM,
DISTRICT - 682511
2 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEERLOCAL SELF
GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, MALAPPURAM - 682511.
3 M.P.ABDUL NASARPWD CONTRACTOR
KUZHIMANNA PO, KIZHISSEERI(VIA),
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673641
4 N.GANESHAN PWD CONTRACTOR
ARIYALLOOR PO, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 312
BY ADV SRI.M.K.ABOOBACKER
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.B.S.SYAMANTAK, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 18.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).No.4268/2011
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.4268 of 2011
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of February, 2022
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed with following prayers:
i. Call for the records leading to Exhibit P8 and P9 letters and quash order awarding the work of maintenance work of Orapingal - Moosarithadom Road and Mundakulam-Moochikkal-
Valiyaparamba Road to the 3rd and 4th respondents respectively by issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction. ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing respondents 1st and 2nd respondent to award the maintenance work of Orapingal -Moosarithadom Road and Mundakulam-Moochikkal-
Valiyaparamba Road to the petitioner excluding the value of the bitumen(tar) and other materials supplied by the first respondent in accordance with law.
iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the 1st and second respondent to dispose the Ext. P3 and P4 representations with in a time period. W.P.(C).No.4268/2011
iv. Issue such other orders as this court deems fit to grant in the nature of the case. (SIC)
2. When this writ petition came up for consideration,
the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent
submitted that the work is already over and the prayers in the
writ petition are infructuous.
Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JV JUDGE
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!