Lijoy Varghese v. State Election Commission

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015/18TH AGRAHAYANA, 1937 WP(C).No. 30112 of 2015 (L) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER : - ---------------------- LIJOY VARGHESE, MANAGEMENT TRAINEE, HEAD OFFICE, KERALA STATECO-OPERATIVE CONSUMERS FEDERATION LTD., GANDHI NAGAR, ERNAKULAM.

BY ADVS.SRI.B.S.SWATHI KUMAR SRI.REMYA MURALI SRI.ASHISH MOHAN SMT.T.RESHMA RESPONDENTS :- -------------------------

1. STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, KERALA STATE, CORPORATION OFFICE COMPLEX, IST FLOOR, LMS JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 003.

2. THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE CONSUMER FEDERATION LTD., GANDHI NAGAR, ERNAKULAM.PIN - 682 020, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE CONSUMER FEDERATION LTD, GANDHI NAGAR, ERNAKULAM - 682 020.

R2 & 3 BY ADV. SRI.RAJU JOSEPH (SR.) R2 & 3 BY ADV. SRI.K.T.PAULOSE, SC, CONSUMERFED R1 BY ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC,K.S.E.COMMISSION THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-12-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 30112 of 2015 (L) --------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : - ------------------------------------- EXT.P-1 :

TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.7250/2014/SEC DATED 11.8.2015. EXT.P-2 :

TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.597/2015/SEC DATED 21.9.2015 OF THE IST RESPONDENT.

EXT.P-3 :

THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION RECEIVED BY THE REGIONAL MANAGER, KUNDARA OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 28.9.2015.

EXT.P-4 :

TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.AD2/8032/2015 - 16/012 DATED 1.10.2015.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : - NIL.

--------------------------------------- // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE DMR/-

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

--------------------------------------- W.P.(c) No. 30112 of 2015 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 09th day of December, 2015

JUDGMENT

Both the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents have submitted that in view of the subsequent developments nothing survives in the writ petition. This Court, therefore, closes the writ petition as having not survived for further consideration.

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE DMR/-