The writ petition was dismissed because the petitioner failed to pay process fees for a notice ordered in 2008, indicating a lack of interest in prosecuting the matter. No substantive legal principles were determined.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN
TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2015/17TH CHAITHRA, 1937
WP(C).No. 23486 of 2008 (U)
PETITIONER :
PREMACHANDRAN,
S/O.PARAYIL KRISHNAN EZHUTHACHAN, AKAMALA, ENKAKKADU THALAPPILLY TALUK.
BY ADV. SRI.K.G.BALASUBRAMANIAN
RESPONDENTS :
R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ABHIJETT LESSLI
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-04-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 23486 of 2008 (U)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :
EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 17.3.2008 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXT.P2 : COPY OF STATEMENT DATED 6.5.2008 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXT.P3 :COPY OF NEWS REPORT IN MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY DATED 13.5.2008.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.A TO JUDGE
AV
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.
------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No.23486 of 2008
Dated this the 7th day of April, 2015
J U D G M E N T
No representation for the petitioner. This case is posted before me in the defect list. Though notice was ordered on 22.08.2008, notice has not been issued for the reason that, the petitioner has not paid process. It is obvious that the petitioner is no longer interested in prosecuting this writ petition.
This writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.
Sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.
AV
PREMACHANDRAN
THE TALUK LAND BOARD, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DT.
STATE OF KERALA
K.SURENDRA MOHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
