Kerala High Court
WP(C)/976/2008 of NANDHAKUMAR Vs REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,PALA on 31 December 2012
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.P.RAY MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/10TH POUSHA 1934 WP(C).No. 976 of 2008 (N) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------- NANDHAKUMAR, S/O. KUNJAN NAIR, AGED 42 YEARS, MANAGING PARTNER KWALITY CONSTRUCTIONS AND
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.P.RAY
MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/10TH POUSHA 1934
WP(C).No. 976 of 2008 (N)
-------------------------
PETITIONER(S):-------------
NANDHAKUMAR, S/O. KUNJAN NAIR,
AGED 42 YEARS, MANAGING PARTNER KWALITY CONSTRUCTIONS AND BUILDING BLOCKS PUTHIYA ROAD, VELLOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT
RESIDING AT MALAYAPARAMBIL, THONNALLOOR MEVELLOOR P.O.
BY ADVS.SRI.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN
SMT.LEKSHMI SWAMINATHAN
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
2. TAHSILDAR, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
3. VILLAGE OFFICER, VELLOOR, VELLOOR P.O., VAIKOM TALUK KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.THOMAS JOHN AMBOOKAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.P.RAY,J.
-------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.976 of 2008
--------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 31[st] day of December, 2012
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
None appears for the petitioner. On a reading of theprayers in the writ petition, it appears to me that the subjectmatter of the writ petition has become infructuous. Accordingly,the same is closed as infructuous. It is open to the petitioner toapproach this Court, if fresh cause of action arises.
B.P.RAY, JUDGE
Su/-