Kerala High Court
WP(C)/8809/2016 of AJITHKUMAR Vs STATE OF KERALA on 10 April 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 20TH CHAITHRA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 8809 OF 2016 PETITIONER: AJITHKUMAR AGED 40 YEARS S/O. RAGHAVAN, GANAPATHY VILLA,KOTTAKKUNNU, SULTHAN BATHERY P.O., SULTHAN BATHERY,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ
THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 20TH CHAITHRA,
WP(C) NO. 8809 OF 2016
PETITIONER:
AJITHKUMAR
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O. RAGHAVAN, GANAPATHY VILLA,KOTTAKKUNNU, SULTHAN BATHERY P.O., SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD DISTRICT.
RESPONDENTS:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL
ADMINISTRATION, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-673 001.
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
WAYANAD DISTRICT, KERALA-673 121.
THE THASILDAR
SULTHAN BATHERY TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, SULTHAN
BATHERY POST, WAYANAD DISTRICT-673 592.
THE VILLAGE OFFICER
KUPPADI VILLAGE, SULTHAN BATHERY POST,
SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD DISTRICT-673 592.
BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI.BINOY DAVIS,GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 10.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
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.
J U D G M E N T
(Dated this the 10th day of April, 2025) Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, this Court observed that the learned Counsel for the petitioner had expired. Thereafter, notice was issued to the party directly on 03.03.2025 and the acknowledgment card from the petitioner was returned on 02.04.2025. Even today, there has been no representation for the petitioner, either in person or through any counsel. Under such circumstances, It appears that the petitioner is no longer interested in prosecuting the case further. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. However, the closure of writ petition will not stand in the way of the petitioner if he is interested in prosecuting the case further. Sd/- P.M MANOJ JUDGE AKH
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8809/2016 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE SALE AGREEMENT DTD.9.10.2013 BETWEEN ABDUL NAZER AND PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE SALE AGREEMENT DTD.30.3.2006 BETWEEN CHACKO AND BABU. EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD.14.8.2014 SUBMITTED BY BABU BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD.29.9.2014 GIVEN TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD.19.1.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.