Dismissed

Dr.R.Gopinathan, v. Thrissur Corporation

Kerala HC11 Jul 2022WP(C)/40104/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that as the 1st petitioner is deceased and the 2nd petitioner has issued no instructions, the writ petition has no basis to survive and is closed. Counsel's submission was accepted without adjudication on merits.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is closed and dismissed. Parties may approach the Court by filing separate writ petitions for any surviving grievance.

Dr.R.Gopinathan, Vs Thrissur Corporation — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶3

MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 20TH ASHADHA, 1944

¶4

WP(C) NO. 40104 OF 2018

¶5

PETITIONER/S:

¶6

1 DR.R.GOPINATHAN, AGED 61 YEARS CHIEF CO-ORDINATOR, ABARD CENTRE, SAKTHAN NAGAR, THRISSUR 680 001.

¶7

2SEENA E.M, TECHNICAL MANAGER, ABARD CENTRE,
SAKTHAN NAGAR, THRISSUR 680 001
BY ADVS.
S.PRASANTH (AYYAPPANKAVU)
SMT.VARSHA BHASKAR
SRI.JYOTHISH D.MONY

¶8

RESPONDENT/S:

¶9

1 THRISSUR CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THRISSUR 680 001

¶10

2 TOWN PLANNING OFFICER, THRISSUR CORPORATION , THRISSUR 680 001

¶11

3SUNITHA
SOUGHT TO BE IMPLEADED
BY ADVS.
SRI. SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL, SC, THRISSUR
CORPORATION
K.BIJU

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

SRI.ROBSON PAUL, SC FOR KERALA AGRICULTURAL
UNIVERSITY

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 11.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

W.P.(C). No. 40104 of 2018

¶16

-2-

¶17

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

¶18

====================================================== W.P.(C) No. 40104 of 2018

¶19

Dated this the 11^th day of July, 2022

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

It is conceded by both parties that the 1^st petitioner is no

¶22

more. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that he has no instruction from the 2^nd petitioner. If that is so, nothing survives

¶23

in this writ petition. Therefore, this writ petition is closed.

¶24

If there is any surviving grievance to any of the parties,

¶25

they are free to approach this Court by filing separate writ petition.

¶26

sd/-

¶27

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶28

das

¶29

-3-

¶30

W.P.(C). No. 40104 of 2018

¶31

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 40104/2018

¶32

`PETITIO` `EXHIBIT`	`NER EXH` `P1`	`IBITS` `TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE REPORT` `OF THE ABARD WOMEN EMPLOYMENT` `GENERATION SCHEME FOR THE YEAR 2006-07`
`EXHIBIT`	`P2`	`TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO., R6/17560/2007` `DATED 17-08-2006 SENT BY THE MAYOR OF` `THE RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER`
`EXHIBIT`	`P3`	`TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO. LETTER NO. DW6` `17814/07 DATED 18-08-2007 ISSUED BY` `THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST` `PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE APPROVED` `PLAN FOR ABARD CENTRE`
`EXHIBIT`	`P4`	`TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 6-12-2017` `ISSUED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER`
`EXHIBIT`	`P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.` `R3/R7/1930/2006 DATED 18-12-2017 SENT` `BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE` `ANNEXURES`
`EXHIBIT`	`P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. ABD/6/2018` `DATED 6-1-2018 SENT BY THE 1ST` `PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT`
`EXHIBIT`	`P7`	`TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 01-06-2009` `SENT BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE` `REGISTRAR, KERALA AGRICULTURAL` `UNIVERSITY WITH COPIES TO THE MAYOR` `AND SECRETARY OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT`
`EXHIBIT`	`P8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 10-` `01-2018 FILED BY SMT. SUNITHA` `JAYAKUMAR UNDER THE RTI ACT TO THE` `PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE 1ST` `RESPONDENT`
`EXHIBIT`	`P9`	`TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 20-02-` `2018 FILED BY SMT. SUNITHA JAYAKUMAR` `UNDER THE RTI ACT TO THE APPELLATE` `AUTHORITY OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT`

¶33

-4-

¶34

W.P.(C). No. 40104 of 2018

¶35

`EXHIBIT P10`	`TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE` `MEETING HELD ON 21-05-2018 FURNISHED` `BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY OF THE 1ST` `RESPONDENT`
`EXHIBIT P11`	`TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 2-7-2018 SENT` `BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY OF THE 1ST` `RESPONDENT`
`EXHIBIT P12`	`TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO. R3/R7/1930/06` `DATED 26-10-2018 SENT BY THE 1ST` `RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.`
`RESPONDENT EXHIB`	`ITS`
`EXHIBIT R1(A)`	`TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 3.9.18` `ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR, KERALA` `AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY.`
`EXHIBIT R1(B)`	`TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 23.3.09` `ISSUED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE` `1ST RESPONDENT.`
`ANNEXURE 1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE` `THRISSUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OFFICE.`

Dr.R.Gopinathan, v. Thrissur Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.R.Gopinathan, v. Thrissur Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kuriakose K. Varghese Vs District Collector

Y.Damodaran Vs State

Suresh Vs State of Kerala

Rugmini Amma Vs State of Kerala

Sukumaran Vs Champakkualam Grama Panchayath

Alaudeen Vs State of Kerala