High Court of KeralaWP(C)/1031/2015dismissed for default

M. Kanakambaran v. The Thrikkakara Municipality

2015-02-163 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/27TH MAGHA, 1936 WP(C).No. 1031 of 2015 (D) PETITIONER:

M. KANAKAMBARAN, AGED 60 YEARS MANAGING PARTNER, SREEKASHI WORKING WOMEN'S HOSTEL VIKASAVANI, THENGODE, KAKKANAD P.O KOCHI -30.

BY ADV. SRI.K.K.SATHISH RESPONDENTS:

1. THRIKKAKARA MUNICIPALITY KAKKANAD P.O., KOCHI - 682 030 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

2. THE SECRETARY, THRIKKAKARA MUNICIPALITY, KAKKANAD P.O.

KOCHI- 682 030.

R1 & R 2 BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 1031 of 2015 (D) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 28/02/2014 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT TOWARDS THE RENEWAL OF LICENCE FEES. EXHIBIT-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 05/01/2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT-P2(a) ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXHIBIT-P2. EXHIBIT-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 06/01/2015. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED ON 19.3.2013. EXHIBIT R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 11.7.2013. EXHIBIT R1(c) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 2.7.2013 OF THE HEALTH INSPECTOR, PUBLIC HEALTH CENTRE, KAKKANAD.

EXHIBIT R1(d) TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 6.1.2015 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

//TRUE COPY// AHZ/

K.T.SANKARAN, J.

------------------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) NO. 1031 of 2015 (D) ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of February, 2015

JUDGMENT

It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 that in the light of the interim order dated 16.1.2015, relief No.2 is satisfied and, therefore, the Writ Petition has practically become infructuous. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 that the petitioner has not complied with the interim order.

There is no representation for the petitioner. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed for default.

(K.T.SANKARAN) Judge ahz/