← Library
High Court of KeralaWP(C)/33316/2014dismissed

K.P.Prashanthan v. The Special Sale Officer

2015-01-21Honourable Mr.Justice V.Chitambaresh3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2015/1ST MAGHA, 1936 WP(C).No. 33316 of 2014 (L) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

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

1. K.P.PRASHANTHAN, AGED 47 YEARS, PUTHENVILA NALUTHUNDATHIL HOUSE, KOTTAPURAM, PARAVUR KOLLAM DISTRICT.

2. GEETHA W/O.K.P.PRASHANTHAN, PUTHENVILA NALUTHUNDATHIL HOUSE, KOTTAPURAM, PARAVUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL V.MOHAMMED RESPONDENT(S):

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

1. THE SPECIAL SALE OFFICER OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 013.

2. THE PARAVUR URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KOTTAPURAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 301 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

R2 BY ADV. SRI.BINU GEORGE R2 BY ADV. SMT.HEMALATHA R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.R.RAJESH.

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 33316 of 2014 (L) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ---------------------------- EXHIBIT P1. COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 26.02.2013 OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES/ARBITRATOR CONCERNING THE IST PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P2. COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 26.02.2013 OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES/ARBITRATOR CONCERNING THE 2ND PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P3. COPY OF THE NOTICE FOR SALE DATED 07.11.14 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT CONCERNING THE IST PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P4. COPY OF THE NOTICE FOR SALE DATED 07.11.14 ISUSED BY THE IST RESPONDENT CONCERNING THE 2ND PETITIONER.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.

------------------------------ //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE.

V.CHITAMBARESH, J.

--------------------- W.P (C) No.33316 of 2014 --------------------- Dated this the 21st day of January, 2015

J U D G M E N T

The Government has reportedly granted instalment facility to the petitioners to pay the amount due to the second respondent Bank. The petitioners point out that the instalment facility so granted has also been duly communicated. The petitioners therefore do not want to prosecute the writ petition in the circumstances.

The Writ Petition is hence dismissed as unnecessary.

Sd/- V.CHITAMBARESH, Judge.

nj.