A.V.Kannan v. Kerala Co-Op.Employees Pension Board
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU SATURDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2015/22ND SRAVANA 1937 WP(C).No. 19711 of 2006 (V) ---------------------------- PETITIONERS:
---------------
1. A.V.KANNAN, S/O.GOVINDAN, 77 YEARS, NO EMPLOYMENT, RESIDING AT ISWARYA NIVAS, P.O.VELLUR, VIA.PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT.
(SUPERVISOR, PAYYANNUR KSHEERA VYAVASAYA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., PAYYANNUR).
2. K.V.NARAYANA PODUVAL, S/O.AMBU PODUVAL, 76 YEARS, NO EMPLOYMENT, KANDOTH VELLUR VILLAGE, P.O.KANDOTH, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR, (MILK DISTRIBUTION BOY, PAYYANNUR KSHEERA VYAVASAYA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., PAYYANNUR).
3. P.K.KRISHNA PODUVAL, S/O.AMBU PODUVAL, 76 YEARS, NO EMPLOYMENT, NEAR S.S.TEMPLE, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT, (MILK DISTRIBUTION BOY, PAYYANNUR KSHEERA, VYAVASAYA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. PAYYANNUR.
BY ADVS.SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE SRI.M.M.ANTO RESPONDENTS:
-----------------
1. KERALA CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES PENSION BOARD, NEAR AYURVEDA COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. PAYYANNUR KSHEERA VYAVASAYA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., PAYYANNUR, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. R,R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR R, BY ADV. SRI.P.V.MOHANAN,SC,K.ST.CO.OP.EMP.PENSI R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-08-2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.
---------------------------------- W.P. (C) No. 19711 of 2006 (V) ---------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of August, 2015.
JUDGMENT
The learned counsel for the petitioners has represented that petitioners 1 and 2 died subsequent to the filing of the writ petition. Insofar as the third petitioner is concerned, the learned counsel has submitted that he has so far not got any instructions from the third petitioner, despite his best efforts. In the facts and circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioners reports that he is not in a position to even trace out the correct address of the third petitioner to communicate to him concerning the progress of the case. The writ petition was filed in 2006. To this day, the learned counsel for the petitioners could not get any instructions, at least from the third petitioner, who alone is alive. This Court, having no other alternative, dismisses the writ petition for non-prosecution. sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.
rv
W.P.(C). No.
-2-