IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2011 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1932 OP(C).No. 1057 of 2011(O) -------------------------------------- ( O.A.(II U)/ ERS/2010/0028 DATED 18/1/2011) --------------------- PETITIONER ------------------- DR.THOMASKUTTY L, S/O.LAZAR, AGED 47 YEARS, READER, DEPARTMENT OF MALAYALAM AND KERALA STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, UNIVERSITY POST - 673 635 (SOWPARNIKA, EAST KALLADA VILLAGE, KOLLAM TALUK AND DISTRICT). BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI SRI.R.SREEHARI RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- UNION OF INDIA OWNING SOUTHERN RAILWAY REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, CHENNAI - 600 003. BY ADV.SRI.C.S.DIAS, SC FOR RAILWAY THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P. BHAVADASAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.(Civil). No. 1057 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of March, 2011. JUDGMENT In this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the only grievance of the petitioner is regarding certain observations made by the Railway Claims Tribunal in Ext.P6 order. 2. The petitioner seems to have suffered injuries in a railway accident and he made a claim before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. After some evidence was adduced, it appears that the petitioner moved an application for amendment, which was considered by the Tribunal and Ext.P6 order was passed, which contains certain observations. The amendment sought for were regarding the time of accident and possible injury that may cause due to the accident. The Tribunal made certain observations stating that the amendment sought for may be inconsistent with the evidence already on record. The O.P.(C). 10572011. 2 petitioner apprehends that the observations in Ext.P6 may prejudice him. 3. The order as such is not assailable. Petitioner's grievance is only regarding certain observations made in Ext.P6 order. There is no reason to believe that the Tribunal will not decide the case in accordance with law and in the light of the evidence adduced by the parties before the Tribunal. However, there will be a direction to the Tribunal to consider the matter in accordance with law and in the light of the evidence adduced by the parties and the Tribunal shall not be prejudiced by the observations made in Ext.P6 order. The original petition is disposed of as above. P. BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sb.