Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

Padmini Rajan vs The District Manager on 8 May, 2008

        

 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT:

             THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

      THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2017/25TH PHALGUNA, 1938

                    WP(C).No. 39131 of 2016 (N)
                    ----------------------------


PETITIONER(S):
-------------

            PADMINI RAJAN,
            AGED 65,
           (GROUP LEADER DEVIKRIPA GROUP NAYARAMBALAM),
            W/O.RAJAN,
            ANCHALASSERY HOUSE,
            NAYARAMBALAM,
            KOCHI TALUK, PIN 682 509.


            BY ADVS.SRI.P.P.SUBHASH CHANDRAN
                    SMT.M.KABANI DINESH

RESPONDENT(S):
--------------

          1. THE DISTRICT MANAGER,
            MATSYAFED ERNAKULAM DISTRICT OFFICE,
            THOPPUMPADY, KOCHI 682 005.

          2. THE SECRETARY,
            NAYARAMBALAM - EDAVANAKKAD
            VANITHA MALSYATHOZHILALI,
            VIKASANA KSHEMA SAHAKARANA
            SANGAM LTD. NO. F(E) 101/96/CZ,
            EDAVANAKKAD P.O., PIN 682 502.

          3. THE CHAIRMAN,
            MATSYAFED,
            KAMALESHWARAM, MANACUD P.O.,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 009.


            R1 & R3 BY SRI.N.RADHAKRISHNAN, SC, MATSTYAFED

      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)  HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD  ON
      16-03-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


EL

WP(C).No. 39131 of 2016 (N)
----------------------------

                              APPENDIX

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
P1             TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION DATED
              8.5.2008 OF VEHICLE TATA ACE MAGIC HT BS II BEARING
              REGISTER NO. KL - 42-B-846

2              TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
              DATED 29.7.2014 ALONG WITH RECEIPT

P3             TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25.2.2015 OF THE 2ND
              RESPONDENT

P4             TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICES  DATED 21.3.2016 ALONG
              WITH POSTAL RECEIPTS

P4A            TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICES DATED 14.6.2016 ALONG
              WITH POSTAL RECEIPT

P5             TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE
              PETITIONER ON 27.7.2016 BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2
              ALONG WITH THE POSTAL RECEIPT

P6             TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 1ST
              RESPONDENT ON 9.8.2016

P7             TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 6.9.2016 ALONG
              WITH THE POSTAL RECEIPTS

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------

           NIL


                                                 TRUE COPY




                                               P.S. TO JUDGE
EL



                       ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

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

                   W.P.(C) No.39131 of 2016

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

             Dated this the 16th day of March, 2017



                         J U D G M E N T

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 3.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that No Objection Certificate for lifting hypothecation which was prayed for in the writ petition has been granted by the 2nd respondent after service of notice in this writ petition on them.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is a senior citizen who had been driven from pillar to post for more than two years to get the hypothecation lifted even after the entire amounts due were paid. Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore prays that the 2nd respondent may be visited with cost for the delay caused in the matter. W.P.(C) No.39131/2016 2

Since the writ petitioner's grievance now stands redressed by the 2nd respondent though after considerable delay, I do not deem it fit to impose cost on the 2nd respondent who is a Fishermen's Co-operative Society.

This writ petition is therefore closed as having become infructuous.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE smp