Varkey v. The H'Ble Tribunal For Local Self Govt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/3RD ASWINA, 1937 WP(C).No. 10917 of 2005 (Y) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S):
-------------------------- VARKEY, AGED 72, S/O.CHUNKATH CHAKKUNNY, PARAPPUR DESOM, THOLUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR).
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. THE THOLUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PARAPPUR P.O. THRISSUR.
3. BIJU, S/O.LATE FRANCIS, PUTHUR HOUSE, THOLUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK.
* ADDL. R4 IMPLEADED
4. THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, DISTRICT OFFICE, 'LAKSHMI', SAKTHI NAGAR, POONKUNNAM, THRISSUR-2.
* IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 31/05/2005 ON I.A. NO.6992/2005. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.SOJAN JAMES.
R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.BHARATHAN.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
rs.
WP(C).No. 10917 of 2005 (Y) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P1 COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE WARD MEMBER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT DATED NIL.
EXT.P2 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S. NO.3223/2000 DATED 19/02/2003 ON THE FILE OF THE SECOND ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR.
EXT.P3 COPY OF THE COMMISSIONERS REPORT IN O.S. NO.3223/2000 ON THE FILE OF THE SECOND ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR.
EXT.P4 COPY OF THE LETTER COMMUNICATED TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DISTRICT OFFICE, THRISSUR DATED 07/10/2004.
EXT.P5 COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT IN APPEAL NO.74/2004 DATED 01/03/2005.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.
//TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs.
A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P(C) No.10917 of 2005 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 25th day of September, 2015
JUDGMENT
When the matter came up for hearing, it is submitted by both sides that there is no surviving cause of action. Therefore, the writ petition is closed without examining the merits. Sd/- A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE krj