High Court of KeralaWP(C)/3356/2005dismissed for default

G.Jagadamma And Another v. State Of Kerala

2015-07-13Honourable Mr. Justice Dama Seshadri Naidu2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JULY 2015/22ND ASHADHA, 1937 WP(C).No. 3356 of 2005 (Y) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONERS:

1. G.JAGADAMMA, EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ALEPPEY DISTRICT CO-OEPRATIVE BANK LTD., KATTANAM BRANCH, KATTANAM P.O. ALAPPUZHA, RESIDING AT PRASANTHI, ANGILIPRA, THATTARAMBALAM P.O., MAVELIKKARA.

2. N.SREEKUMAR, EXECUTIVE OFFICER/ SENIOR MANAGER, ALEPPEY DISTRICT CO-OP.BANK, CHERTHALA BRANCH, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.SUDHEEN V.KAMATH SRI.A.R.DILEEP RESPONDENTS:

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT IN THE DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

2. THE ALEPPEY DISTRICT CO-OP.BANK LTD., ALAPPUZHA REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, ALAPPUZHA.

3. T HE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, ALAPPUZHA.

4. K.R.MOHANAN, ASSISTANT BRANCH MANAGER, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT CO-OP. BANK, ALAPPUZHA.

5. W.P.JOHN, EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SUPERINTENDENT, RECONCILIATION CELL, HEAD OFFICE, P.B.NO.104, ALEPPEY DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, ALAPPUZHA.

6. K.G.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, EXECUTIVE OFFICER/SENIOR MANAGER, PULINKUNNU BRANCH, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT CO-OP.BANK.

7. V.N.GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, EXECUTIVE OFFICER/SENIOR MANAGER, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT CO-OP. BANK.

8. E.M.VARGHESE, EXECUTIVE OFFICER, RECONCILIATION CELL, HEAD OFFICE, P.B.NO.104 ALEPPEY DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, ALAPPUZHA. R1 & R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.G.GOPAKUMAR R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.G.ARUN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.3356 of 2005 Y -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of July, 2015

JUDGMENT

None appears for the petitioners. Despite the fact that the writ petition belongs to the year 2005 and that well in advance this Court has notified that the matter would be taken up today, the petitioners have not chosen to appear before the Court to prosecute the case. This Court accordingly holds that the petitioners may not be inclined to pursue the writ petition. As a result, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.

Dama Seshadri Naidu, Judge tkv