This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was heard and dismissed outright as withdrawn by the petitioner, who decided not to pursue the matter further against the recovery proceedings.
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 ANIL K.NARENDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1941
WP(C).No.3381 OF 2019(W)
PETITIONER:
RAVI.A.K., AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. KUMARAN, AMBATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KURUMASSERY P.O, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683579
BY ADV. SRI.ZAKEER HUSSAIN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
4 RAMAN NAIR, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O. PARAMESWARAN NAIR, MADAPPATTU HOUSE, MULAVOORE VILLAGE, PALIPRA KARA, MOOVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM 686 673.
5 SABITH, S/O. BASHEER, PALIKKEL HOUSE, MULAVOOR VILLAGE, PEZHAKKAPPILLY KARA, MUVATTUPUZHA 686 673.
SRI PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL- GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
WP(C)3381 OF 2019
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Exts.P4 and P5 demand notices dated 23.05.2018; a declaration that the recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner is illegal and arbitrary, as it was passed on misconception of law; a declaration that respondents 2 and 3 are not entitled to proceed for recovering the amount as demanded in Exts.P4 and P5 or any other amount against the petitioner; a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6 before any steps are taken against the petitioner and his property; and an order directing the respondents not to initiate any further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P4 and P5.
3
WP(C)3381 OF 2019
petitioner do not want to prosecute this writ petition further and therefore, the writ petition may be dismissed as withdrawn.
Recording the above submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE
yd
Ravi.A.K.
State of Kerala
Deputy Tahsildar, Revenue Recovery
Village Officer, Parakkadavu
Raman Nair
Sabith
Anil K. Narendran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
