Saji K Jose vs The District Collector
2021 Latest Caselaw 5109 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

    THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 22ND MAGHA,1942

                      WP(C).No.15954 OF 2012(T)


PETITIONERS:

      1        SAJI K JOSE
               W/O.LAWRENCE PADMADAN, KALLOLIKKAL HOUSE, MALLUSSERY
               P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

      2        SEENA K JOSE
               W/O.RAJESH ALBERT, AGED 40 YEARS,
               THOTTAYAM HOUSE, MUTTAMBALAM P.O.,
               KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

      3        SUNIL K JOSE
               KALLOLIKKAL HOUSE, S/O.K.V.JOSE,
               KALLOLIKKAL, MALLUSSERY P.O.,
               KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR
               SRI.KISHOR B.

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 033.

      2        THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 033.

      3        THE TAHSILDAR
               TALUK OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
               PIN - 695 033.

      4        THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR
               TALUK OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
               PIN - 695 033.


               SYAMJIRAM GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD         ON
11.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.15954 OF 2012(T)

                                       2




                              JUDGMENT

The writ petition has been filed praying for

directions regarding mutation as per Transfer of

Registry Rules. I.A.No.11948/2014 has been filed by

the petitioners through Adv.Sri.Kishore.B, seeking

permission to withdraw the writ petition as not

pressed, with liberty to institute a civil suit. Along

with the petition, a vakalath in favour of

Adv.Sri.Kishore.B., is also produced, which has been

incorporated in the file by the Registry. The Registry

has however noted that formal relinquishment of the

counsel who has appeared for the petitioners earlier

has not been received.

2. The case has been remaining on the files of

this Court from 2012 and in spite of the petitioners

expressing their intention to withdraw the writ

petition as early as in 2014, the writ petition is

still remaining not disposed of.

3. Petitioners do not wish to prosecute this case WP(C).No.15954 OF 2012(T)

any further. In the above circumstances, this writ

petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the

petitioners to institute any civil proceedings. Even

though no formal relinquishment of the vakalath has

been received from the counsel who was appearing for

the petitioners earlier, it is declared that such a

relinquishment need not be insisted in the

circumstances of the case.

Sd/-

T.R.RAVI JUDGE

Pn