High Court of KeralaWP(C)/3114/2015dismissed

Leela v. District Collector

2015-07-20Honourable Mr.Justice V.Chitambaresh3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JULY 2015/29TH ASHADHA, 1937 WP(C).No. 3114 of 2015 (L) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER:

-------------------- LEELA, VINU NIVAS, V.P. 8/597, NEDUMKUZHI CHOWALLOOR, VILAPPIL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.M.HEMALATHA RESPONDENTS:

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

1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695005.

2. THE CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695003.

R1 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. THOMAS JOHN AMBOOKEN R2 BY ADVS. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.) SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR, SC, TVPM CORPORATION THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 3114 of 2015 (L) ------------------------------------ APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN L.A.R.NO. 376 OF 2007 BEFORE THE 2ND ADDL. SUB COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 21-112009. EXHIBIT P2- TRUE COPY OF THE E.P.NO. 39 OF 2011 DATED 25-1-2011. EXHIBIT P3- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12-6-2007 BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

EXHIBIT P4- TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 8-3-2013 BY THE ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURE:- --------------------------------------- ANNEXURE A:

THE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER NO. A3/422/11 DATED 18.2.2015 ISSUED BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, ADDITIONAL LA UNIT,KUDAPANNAKUNNU, TO THE PRINCIPAL SUB JUDGE, TVM

V. CHITAMBARESH, J --------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 3114 OF 2015 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of July, 2015

JUDGMENT

The earlier counsel has relinquished the engagement. Fresh notice issued to the petitioner by the Registry has returned unserved. It appears that the petitioner has left from the address furnished in the writ petition.

There is no representation for the petitioner repeatedly. The writ petition is hence dismissed for non-prosecution. V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE