Nanniyode Ksheerolpadaka Co-Op. ... vs The Deputy Director Of Dairy ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 6249 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

    MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 3RD PHALGUNA, 1942

                      WP(C).No.11992 OF 2011(Y)


PETITIONER:

               NANNIYODE KSHEEROLPADAKA CO-OP. SOCIETY
               SOCIETY LTD.NO.T.57(D), APCOS, NANNIYODE,
               PACHA.P.O,, NEDUMANGAD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
               REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT B.S.RAMESAN.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.B.S.SWATHI KUMAR
               SMT.ANITHA RAVINDRAN
               SMT.M.G.AISHWARYA
               SMT.S.MEERA

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF DAIRY DEVELOPMENT
               PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

      2        S.ANIL KUMAR, CHANDRIKA VILASOM
               TANNIMOODU, PALUPALLY.P.O,
               THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN-695562.

      3        BINU.S.LAL, LAL COTTAGE, TANNIMOODU
               ELAVATTOM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695562.

               BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER
               BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM


               GP SRI B HARISH KUMAR

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD        ON
22.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.11992 OF 2011(Y)

                              2



                        JUDGMENT

Dated this the 22nd day of February 2021

Petitioner Co-operative Society has assailed order

Ext.P10 dated 28.03.2011 passed by the 1 st respondent

whereby respondent Nos.2 and 3 have been reinstated in

service. In other words the resolution terminating the

services of respondents 2 and 3 had been rescinded.

2. Sri.B.Harish kumar, learned Government Pleader

submits that respondent Nos.2 and 3 were served with

charge sheet and thereafter they have been dismissed from

service by the competent authority. Learned counsel for the

petitioner feigns ignorance about the same.

3. Accepting the aforesaid statement made by

Sri.B.Harish kumar, on the basis of telephonic instruction,

the petitioner would not have any cause of action in view of

the fact that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have been dismissed.

No ground for interference is made out. WP(C).No.11992 OF 2011(Y)

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as

infructuous. Liberty is granted to revive the petition in case

something survives.

Sd/-

AMIT RAWAL

JUDGE nak