M.Arifa Beevi v. Managing Director, Kshdc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015/25TH BHADRA, 1937 WP(C).No. 35161 of 2008 (J) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

-------------------------- M. ARIFA BEEVI, STORE KEEPER, KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, LTD. REGIONAL OFFICE, NEMOM, TRIVANDRUM.

BY ADV. SRI.T.R.RAVI RESPONDENT(S):

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

1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, LTD. KANNUR.

2. THE REGIIONAL MANAGER, KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, LTD. REGIONAL OFFICE, NEMOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

R,R2 BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR R,R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI R,R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS R,R2 BY ADV. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR R,R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.J.ANAND THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-09-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 35161 of 2008 (J) -------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:

EXT.P1 COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 3.1.06 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXT.P2 COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 8.2.06 EXT.P3 COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE SERVICE RULES EXT.P4 COPY OF THE REPORT NO .TR-M .3/276/A.S.V/2005-06/805 DATED 3.6.06.

EXT.P5 COPY OF THE MEMO NO,G2/566/1561/2006 DATED 28.10.06. EXT.P6 COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 2.3.07 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXT.P7 COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 28.4.07 EXT.P8 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)NO.14809/2007 EXT.P9 COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WITH ENQUIRY REPORT. EXT.P10 COPY OF MEMO DTD. 7.10.08.

EXT.P11 COPY OF MEMO DATED 14.11.08.

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:

NIL // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE SB

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

===================== W.P.(C) No.35161 of 2008 - J ====================== Dated this the 16th day of September, 2015

J U D G M E N T

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed another writ petition numbered as W.P(C) No. 2041 of 2010 against the appellate order and hence the present writ petition, which is against the order impugned in the appeal can be closed without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner, which can be raised in the other writ petition.

The writ petition would stand closed, with the above liberty.

Sd/- K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE SB // true copy // P.A to Judge.