Petitioner in a writ petition filed a memo stating he is not pressing the matter. The High Court of Kerala dismissed the writ petition as not pressed.
Writ petition dismissed as not pressed; Connected I.A. allowed.
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 THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN &
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/23RD POUSHA, 1937
WP(C).No. 24116 of 2013 (L)
PETITIONER(S):
MANIKANDAN C., S/O.HARIDASAN, 24 S/O.HARIDASAN, PARIYANGHAT HOUSE, KULAPPULLY (PO) SHORNUR-2.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN
SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA
RESPONDENT(S):
1. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVT. DEVASWOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2. MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY/COMMISSIONER
ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE-673 006.
3. THE COMMISSIONER
4. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER
5. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
6. HARI, S/O. JADAVEDAN NAMBOODIRI, VETTIKKAT MANA KEEZHATTUR.P.O., MALAPPURAM - 679 325.
R5 BY ADV. SRI.ARUN MATHEW VADAKKAN R6 BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER (SR.)
R2,R3,R4 BY ADV. SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON, SC, MDB R2-R4 BY ADV. SRI.PARTHASARATHY.B, SC, MDB
R1 BY ADV. A.RENJITH, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
R2,R3,R4 BY ADV. SRI.MAHESH V.RAMAKRISHNAN, SC, MDB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jg-20/1
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & ANU SIVARAMAN, JJ.
W.P.(C.) No.24116 of 2013
and I.A.No.173 of 2016
.................................................................... Dated this the 13th day of January, 2016.
J U D G M E N T
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
Read interim order dated 13.11.2013. Today, the petitioner has filed a memo stating that he is not pressing the writ petition, along with an affidavit without stating any reason as to why he has decided not to press the writ petition. He only says that he decides not to further prosecute the matter. Luxury as part of litigation is not something which can be further tolerated in the Indian judicial system which is already over clogged with litigations, including unnecessary and unwanted ones. We accede to the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the sixth respondent that this writ petition may be dismissed as not pressed, obviously meaning thereby that the result of the decision goes against the writ petitioner. The captioned I.A. is allowed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed.
(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE)
(ANU SIVARAMAN, JUDGE)
jg-13/1
Manikandan C.
State of Kerala
Malabar Devaswom Board
The Commissioner
The Asst. Commissioner
The Executive Officer
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan
Anu Sivaraman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
