Saalim Ashref vs The State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 3618 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

     MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 12TH MAGHA,1942

                      W.P.(C) No.26898 OF 2020(J)


PETITIONER/S:

                SAALIM ASHREF,
                AGED 32 YEARS
                S/O. ASHRAF, RESIDING AT SAALIM MANZIL, EX.SERVICEMEN
                COLONY P.O, JAWAHAR COLONY, PALODE, PERINGAMALA
                VILLAGE, NEDUMANGADU TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
                DISTRICT, PIN - 695562.

                BY ADVS.
                SRI.J.R.PREM NAVAZ
                SHRI.SUMEEN S.

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         THE STATE OF KERALA
                REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME
                AFFAIRS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.

      2         THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RURAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
                DISTRICT.

      3         THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
                NEDUMANGAD, OFFICE AT NEDUMANGAD TOWN ROAD,
                PAZHAVADI, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
                PIN - 695541.

      4         STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
                PALODE POLICE STATION, NEDUMANGAD TALUK,
                THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.


OTHER PRESENT:

                SMT VIDHYA A.C-GOVERNMENT PLEADER

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.26898 OF 2020(J)

                                         2

                                 JUDGMENT

The petitioner, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus

commanding the 4th respondent Station House Officer not to harass

him unnecessarily.

2. On 04.12.2020, when this writ petition came up for

admission, the learned Government Pleader was directed to get

instructions.

3. Today, when this writ petition is taken up for

consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks

permission to withdraw this writ petition, since the petitioner is not

interested in prosecuting this matter further.

Recording the above said submission made by the learned

counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed as

withdrawn.

Sd/-

ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE

MIN