K.C.Janardhanan v. State Of Kerala And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/20TH BHADRA, 1937 WP(C).No. 22633 of 2010 (D) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER : - ---------------------- K.C.JANARDHANAN, S/O.GOPALAN NAIR, AGED 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHOTHI, KOTTAVAYAL P.O., PUTHOORVAYAL, KALPETTA, VYTHIRI TALUK, WYNAD DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.SRI.C.S.MANU SRI.S.K.PREMRAJ RESPONDENTS : - --------------------------

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

2. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, COMMISSIONERATE OF EXCISE PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING MUSEUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

3. THE ADDL.COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE (ENFORCEMENT), EXCISE HOUSE, KOWDIYAR, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, EXCISE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, P.O.MOOTTIL, KALPETTA, WYNAD DISTRICT.

5. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, EXCISE RANGE OFFICE, KALPETTA, WYNAD DISTRICT.

6. V.VINOD KUMAR, S/O.P.VENUGOPALAN NAIR, AGED 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT NIRMALYAM, MANIVAYAL P.O., KOTTANAD, MEPPADY, VYTHIRI TALUK, WYNAD DISTRICT, PIN - 689 615.

WP(C).No. 22633 of 2010 (D) --------------------------------------

7. SOUTHERN GROUP, MANIVAYAL, P.O.KOTTANAD, MEPPADY, VYTHIRI TALUK, WYNAD DISTRICT, PIN - 689 615.

REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER.

8. K.R.VIJAYA, FATHER'S NAME AND AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, PROPRIETRESS, HARITHA PHARMACEUTICALS, V/422-A, VARANDARAPPILLY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT - 687 418. R1TO5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. G. GOPAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DMR/-

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

--------------------------------------- W.P.(c) No. 22633 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of September, 2015

JUDGMENT

The petitioner filed the writ petition in 2010. But to this day he has not served notice on the respondents, despite a direction from the Court to serve notice. On 26.07.2011, this Court granted three weeks time to the petitioner to cure the defect; nevertheless, the petitioner has so far not taken any steps. When the matter was listed on 04.09.2015, the learned counsel for the petitioner once again sought time. Today none appears for the petitioner. It is evident that the petitioner does not intend to prosecute the case. This Court accordingly dismisses the writ petition for default. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE DMR/-