Dismissed

P.S.Leela v. District Treasury Officer,Kakkanad

Kerala HC4 Jan 2016WP(C)/4740/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition for non-prosecution as the petitioner appeared unrepresented despite notice directions. The judgment notes the petitioner had previously relinquished engagement and failed to appoint counsel after further notices.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed for non-prosecution due to absence of petitioner and lack of representation.

P.S.Leela Vs District Treasury Officer,Kakkanad — Kerala HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/14TH POUSHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 4740 of 2007 (L)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

P.S.LEELA, COURT OFFICER, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM RESIDING AT "PUNCHAKARAYIL", EDAYAR, KOOTHATTUKULAM ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN SRI.T.R.SATHEESAN SMT.DHANYA CHANDRAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. THE DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER, DISTRICT TREASURY, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD.

¶11

2. THE SUB TREASURY OFFICER, SUB TREASURY OFFICE, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

3. KERALA STATE BACK WARD CLASSES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE KOCHI - 18, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER.

¶13

4. KOOTHATTUKULAM GOVERNMENT SERVANTS SOCIETY, KOOTHATTUKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686662 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶14

5. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT GAZETTED OFFICERS SOCIETY NO.E838, ERNAKULAM 31, VATTOLY COMPLEX KOMBARA JUNCTION, KOCHI - 14, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶15

SRI.REJI JOSEPH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER R,R.4 BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN R,R.4 BY ADV. SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR R BY SMT.P.DEEPTHI, SC,KS BACKWARD CLASS COR

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

RKC

¶18

P.V.ASHA, J.

¶19

W.P.(C) No.4740 of 2007

¶20

Dated this the 4^th day of January, 2016

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

When the matter came up before this Court on 23.1.2013, this Court had directed the Registry to issue notice to the petitioner as it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the engagement for the petitioner had been relinquished. Consequent to this it is seen that Registry has issued notice dated 25.1.2013 to the petitioner for making appearance in person or through a counsel. Thereafter when the matter came up on 5.10.2015, this Court again directed the Registry to send notice to the petitioner directing her to engage a counsel of her choice if she is intending to proceed with the case. It is seen that the Registry has issued another notice on 17.10.2015.

¶23

Today when the case came up for hearing, there is no representation for the petitioner. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.

¶24

Sd/-

¶25

P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.

¶26

rkc

P.S.Leela v. District Treasury Officer,Kakkanad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.S.Leela v. District Treasury Officer,Kakkanad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sabu K. Vs Md., Kerala Water Authority

Sijo K.T Vs Athirappilly Grama Panchayat

K.M.Bava Vs the State of Kerala

V.Suresh Vs v.M.Gopala Menon

Jijo Vs Mrs.Riya Joshy

Baburaj P.T. Vs University of Calicut