Kerala High Court
C.N.Padmini vs State Of Kerala on 9 December, 2008
Author: K.M.Joseph
Bench: K.M.Joseph
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 34384 of 2008(R)
1. C.N.PADMINI, W/O S.SASIDHARAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM.
3. TAHSILDAR (RR), KOLLAM.
4. VILLAGE OFFICER, KOLLAM EAST VILLAGE,
5. S.MOHANDAS, AGED 52 YEARS,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.S.MANU
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :09/12/2008
O R D E R
K. M. JOSEPH, J.
--------------------------------------
W.P.C. NO. 34384 OF 2008 R
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th December, 2008
JUDGMENT
Complaint of the petitioner is against Exts.P1 to P3. Exts.P1 to P3 are recovery proceedings under Sections 7, 34 and 36 of the Revenue Recovery Act. Contention of the petitioner is that a perusal of Exts.P1 to P3 would show that they are in relation to Hema Industries and the fifth respondent is the Proprietor thereof. Petitioner has no connection, it is stated. Learned Government Pleader points out that, on the other hand, actually there were proceedings, one under the Payment of Gratuity Act and the other under Section 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act. He further submit that the petitioner has filed vakalath and she did not contest the matter. The Writ Petition does not show that these facts are disclosed. He also submits that the copy of the order will be given to the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is for the petitioner to resort to such remedies as may be available to the petitioner. Without prejudice to such WPC.34384/08 R 2 remedies as the petitioner may have in law, this Writ Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.2,000/= (Rupees Two Thousand) for the reason that the petitioner has suppressed that there were proceedings against her wherein she had filed vakalath.
Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk.
// True Copy // PS to Judge