Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • Section 4(1) of the Kerala Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1968.
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • Section 4(1) of the Kerala Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1968.

    M. Fajar v. State Of Kerala

    Anu Sivaraman, J.:— The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Exhibit P2 Notification.

    2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

    3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Ext.P2 preliminary notification has been issued in respect of the St. Joseph's Anglo Indian Girls Higher Secondary School, calling for objections in terms of Section 4(1) of the Kerala Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1968. It is submitted that Ext.P3 objection has been preferred by the management of the said school before the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that objections preferred by the management are also liable to be considered, in accordance with law.

    4. Though the relief sought for in this writ petition is for quashing Ext.P2 notification, since Ext.P3 objection had been preferred by the management, I am of the opinion that the grievance of the petitioner will be redressed, if Ext.P3 is considered and appropriately dealt with by the respondents before proceeding any further with the notification.

    5. In the above view of the matter, there will be a direction to the first respondent to take up, consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3 objection preferred by the management with notice to the 3 respondent, if the same has not already been considered. It will be open to the petitioner to prefer any representation before the 1 respondent pointing out their apprehensions in the matter.

    6. The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    M. Fajar v. State Of Kerala
    (Nov 15, 2018)