Annamma Zachariah v. Steel Authority Of India Ltd.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2015/18TH CHAITHRA, 1937 WP(C).NO. 9416 OF 2005 (U) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

--------------

1. ANNAMMA ZACHARIAH, WIDOW OF LATE ZACHARIAH, THURUTHIPPULLY HOUSE PAKKIL P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 012.

2. JOSEPH ZACHARIA ALIAS ROSHAN ZACHARIA, S/O. LATE P.J.ZACHARIA, THURUTHIPPULLY HOUSE PAKKIL P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 012.

BY ADV. SRI.V.L.SHENOY RESPONDENT(S):

------------- STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD., BHILAI STEEL PLANT, BHILAI REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-04-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).NO. 9416 OF 2005 (U) --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :

EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CE/3(A)(20)/86/2962 DATED 25.10.1986 BY THE RESPONDENT.

EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.DY.CE/CONCAST/86/1706 DATED 30/31.10.86 OF THE RESPONDENT.

EXT.P3 : COPY OF SUPPLEMENTARY UNFIT CERTIFICATE NO.117855 DATED 23.08.1986 ISSUED BY MAIN HOSPITAL, BHILAI STEEL PLANT. EXT.P4 : COPY OF APPLICATION MADE BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT DATED 09.12.1986.

EXT.P5 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT DATED 4.02.2002.

EXT.P6 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT DATED 11.06.2002.

EXT.P7 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT DATED 1.7.2002.

RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS : NIL / TRUE COPY / P.A. TO JUDGE

K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J -------------------------------- W.P.(C). No.9416 of 2005 -------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of April 2015

J U D G M E N T

No representation for the petitioner when the matter is posted before me in the defect list. Though notice was ordered on 23.02.2015, notice has not been issued for the reason that, the petitioner has not paid process so far. I notice that time has been granted to cure the defect on previous occasions. It is obvious that the petitioner is no longer interested in prosecuting this writ petition. This writ petition is therefore dismissed. Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE