High Court of KeralaWP(C)/35207/2014dismissed

Gopisundar C S v. The Regional Director

2015-02-25Honourable Mr.Justice P.R.Ramachandra Menon2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/6TH PHALGUNA, 1936 WP(C).No. 35207 of 2014 (A) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

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

1. GOPISUNDAR C.S., AGED 36 YEARS, SON OF C.SURESH BABU, 54/3, "SHREYAS CHEMPAKAM", 3RD STREET, ABIRAMAPURAM, CHENNAI-600 004, PRESENTLY AT 33/1893, "PLAYIKOVILAKAM", MANAKKODAM ROAD, ELAMAKKARA, COCHIN-26.

2. GOPISUNDAR MUSIC COMPANY, 54/3, "SHREYAS CHEMPAKAM", 3RD STREET, ABIRAMAPURAM, CHENNAI-600 004, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR GOPISUNDAR C.S., PRESENTLY AT 33/1893, "PLAYIKOVILAKAM", MANAKKODAM ROAD, ELAMAKKARA, COCHIN-26.

BY ADVS.SRI.SATISH MURTHI, SMT.M.UMA DEVI.

RESPONDENT(S):

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

1. THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF BANKING SUPERVISION, BAKERY JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 033.

2. THE CHAIRMAN, CITY UNION BANK LIMITED, NO.24 B, GANDHINAGAR, KUMBAKONAM-612 001.

3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, CITY UNION BANK, ERNAKULAM BRANCH, RAM-MEENA BLDG, 1848F, 39TH DIVISION, VALANJAMBALAM JUNCTION, S.A. ROAD, COCHIN- 682 016.

4. THE ASSISTANT MANAGER, CITY UNION BANK, ERNAKULAM BRANCH, RAM-MEENA BLDG., 1848F, 39TH DIVISION, VALANJAMBALAM JUNCTION, S.A.ROAD, COCHIN -682 016. R2 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.THYAGARAJESWARAN.

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

rs.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

.............................................................................. W.P.(C)No.35207 OF 2014 ......................................................................... Dated this the 25th February, 2015

J U D G M E N T

The petitioners have approached this Court with the following prayers:

"A. to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ , order or direction directing the 1st respondent to inquire into the KYC Norms adopted and implements by Respondents 2 to 4 and take immediate remedial action.

B. to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to lay down guidelines for implementation of KYC Norms for sole proprietorship concerns who also have an individual identity and address.

C. To grant such other writ order or direction to the 1st respondent in the larger interests of public, as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances."

When the matter was taken up for consideration yesterday, there was no representation for the petitioners. Today also the position is not different. There is nobody to represent the petitioners. It appears that the petitioners have lost interest in the cause of action projected in this writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed for nonprosecution. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE lk