H0YALD Wilson v. Director, Kerala Forest Research Institi
Case brief
What is this about?
Defendant petition dismissed as infructuous due to efflux of time.
What did the court decide?
Writ petition dismissed as infructuous.
Defendant petition dismissed as infructuous due to efflux of time.
Writ petition dismissed as infructuous.
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 MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/7TH ASWINA, 1938
WP(C).No. 25395 of 2007 (W)
PETITIONER(S):
HERALD WILSON, S/O.C.HENRY, MADASSERRY HOUSE, NEAR HOLY CROSS CONVENT, MUNNAR. BY ADVS.SRI.K.V.SADANANDA PRABHU SRI.P.VIJAYARAGHAVAN
RESPONDENT(S):
1. DIRECTOR, KERALA FOREST RESEARCH CENTRE,, PEECHI, THRISSUR. 2. REGISTRAR, KERALA FOREST RESEARCH CENTRE,, PEECHI, THRISSUR.
3. P.K.RAJENDRAN, S/O.LATE P.M.KOCHUKUNNU, PUTHEN VEEDU,, VILANGANNUR, WORKING AS DRIVER,, KERALA FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE, PEECHI, THRISSUR.
4. E.O.MATHAI, S/O.LATE E.V.OUSEPH, Q.NO.18/A, KERALA FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE,, PEECHI, THRISSUR, WORKING AS DRIVER,, KERALA FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE, PEECHI,, THRISSUR.
R1 & 2 BY ADV. SRI.S.M.PREM R1 & 2 BY ADV. SMT.K.P.SANTHI R3 & R4 BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ANU SIVARAMAN, J.
W.P(C).No.25395 of 2007
Dated this the 29th September, 2016
JUDGMENT
It appears that by the efflux of time, this matter has become infructuous. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
ANU SIVARAMAN
JUDGE
vgs29/9
Herald Wilson
Director, Kerala Forest Research Centre
Registrar, Kerala Forest Research Centre
P.K.Rajendran
E.O.Mathai
Anu Sivaraman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court