Sibi Thomas v. State Information Commission
Case brief
What is this about?
Writ petition dismissed for default as petitioners failed to appear and represent despite multiple calls for hearing on the pendency date.
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 DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 26TH MAGHA, 1939
WP(C).No. 12453 of 2011
PETITIONERS
BY ADV.SRI.T.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1. THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNNEN ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY, ITS SECRETARY. PIN- 695 001
2. K.I.ABDUL RASHEED, ADVOCATE,
R-1 BY ADV. SRI.M.AJAY, SC,
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
sdr/-
Devan Ramachandran, J.
W.P.(C)No.12453 of 2011 F
Dated this the 15th day of February, 2018
JUDGMENT
Even though this matter was called on more than one occasion, there was no representation for the petitioners, I suspect, therefore, that the petitioners are not interested in prosecuting this writ petition any further. This writ petition is, therefore, dismissed for default.
Devan Ramachandran, Judge
tkv
Sibi Thomas
Santhosh Kumar P.J.
The State Information Commission
Devan Ramachandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court