P. Venugopal vs District Supply Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 13784 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                    PRESENT
                   THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
         FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2021 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1943
                         WP(C) NO. 10078 OF 2015


PETITIONER:

              P. VENUGOPAL
              AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.PADMANABHA PILLAI,
              RESIDING AT LAKSHMI VILASAM,
              ERATHU MURI, ERATHU VILLAGE,
              PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689645.

              BY ADVS.
              SRI.SHIJU VARGHEESE
              SRI.A.C.EAPEN


RESPONDENTS:

     1        THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER
              OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER,
              PATHANAMTHITTA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,
              PIN-689645.

     2        THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER
              OFFICE OF THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER,
              ADOOR TALUK, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,
              PIN-689645.

     3        SARAMMA MAMMEN
              W/O.LATE MAMMEN, AGED 75,
              AMBIYIL HOUSE, AYYAMKOYIKKAL MURI,
              ERATHU VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,
              PIN-689645.

              BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN



THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 10078 OF 2015
                                 2



                             JUDGMENT

When the case is taken up today, learned counsel

for the petitioner submits that a dispute is pending

between the petitioner and his landlord before the civil

court regarding the right of the petitioner to continue

in the building. He also prays that this writ petition

may be closed allowing the parties to await the decision

of the civil court in the matter.

2. The learned Senior Government Pleader on

instructions submits that as at present, the ARD granted

in favour of the petitioner has been suspended and no

business is carried out in the building in question.

In the above circumstances, the writ petition is

dismissed without prejudice to the rights of the

petitioner and subject to the rights of the parties in

the dispute pending before the civil court.

Sd/-

T.R.RAVI JUDGE Pn WP(C) NO. 10078 OF 2015

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10078/2015

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS

EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DT.9-4-2008.

TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXT.P2 :

BEARING NO.CS3-3910/2007 DT.9-4-2008.

TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND EXT.P3 :

RESPONDENT DT.30-4-2008.

TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE EXT.P4 :

DT.31.4.2014.

TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND EXT.P5 :

RESPONDENT BEARING NO.CS NO.6658/15 DT.17-3-2015.

EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DT.23-3-2015.