Reetha S.F. And Others v. The Director, Social Welfare Department

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/9TH CHAITHRA, 1937 WP(C).NO. 23250 OF 2006 (P) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

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

1. REETHA S.F., W/O.FRANCIS, ANAPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHELLANAM P.O., MARUVAKKAD.

2. LEELAMMA V.A., PUTHEMPURAKKAL HOUSE, KANNAMALY P.O., PUTHENTHODE.

3. METTY MARGARET K.F.,PUTHEMPURAKKAL HOUSE KANDAKADAVU, ANDIKKADAVU P.O.

4. SIBIL P.A., MANPURAKKAL HOUSE, CHELLANAM P.O., S.CHELLANAM.

5. ELIZEBETH GLADIS K.L., ARAKAL HOUSE, KANDAKADAVU, ANDIKADAVU.

6. SULEKHA A.K., AMBITHARA HOUSE, S.CHELLANAM P.O., S.CHELLANAM.

7. MARY A.E., KATIKATTU HOUSE,CHELLANAM P.O. MARUVAKKAD.

8. BABY P.P., PANATHARA HOUSE, ANDIKKADAVU P.O., KANDAKKADAVU.

BY ADV. SRI.WILSON URMESE RESPONDENT(S):

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

1. THE DIRECTOR, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

2. THE DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM.

3. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, PALLURUTHY BLOCK, PALLURUTHY.

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. ABHIJITH LESLIE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).NO. 23250 OF 2006 (P) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :

EXT. P1 : COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.852/05 DATED 17.05.2005 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE CALL LETTERS FOR INTERVIEW ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO 5TH AND 7TH PETITIONERS.

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

K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J -------------------------------- W.P.(C). No.23250 of 2006 -------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of March 2015

J U D G M E N T

Though notice was ordered to the respondents on 24.01.2007, notice has not been issued for the reason that no steps were taken by the petitioners. When the matter is posted before me in the defect list, there is no representation for the petitioner. It is obvious that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting this Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is therefore dismissed. Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN JUDGE / True Copy / P.A. To Judge