Shivasankara Pillai vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 9735 Ker

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

 TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 2ND CHAITHRA, 1943

                    WP(C).No.1663 OF 2021(G)


PETITIONER:

               SHIVASANKARA PILLAI
               AGED 81 YEARS
               S/O. GOVINDA PILLAI, PLAVILAYIL, KIDANGAYAM,
               NOORANAD, PADANILAM, ALAPPUZHA-690 529.

               BY ADV. SRI.MANU ROY

RESPONDENTS:

      1        STATE OF KERALA
               REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS
               DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

      2        ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
               PWD ROADS SUB DIVISION, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA-
               690 101.

      3        ADDL.R3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
               PWD ROADS DIVISION, KATTANAM-690 503.
               ADDL.R3 WAS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 25-01-
               2021 IN IA 1/21 IN WP(C) 1663/2021.

               R1-3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER
               SRI JESTIN MATHEW- GOVERNMENT PLEADER

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C)No.1663 of 2021

                                2

                           JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who is the owner in possession of 0.60 Ares

of land with a shop room situated therein in Re.Sy.No.195/3-9

(old Sy.No.170/2/1) of Nooranad Village, covered by Ext.P1 sale

deed of the Sub Registrar Office, Nooranad, has filed this writ

petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a

writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P7 notice dated 31.12.2020 issued

by the 2nd respondent Assistant Executive Engineer.

2. On 21.01.2021, when this writ petition came up for

admission, the learned Government Pleader sought time to get

instructions as to whether the 2nd respondent has passed any

orders in terms of the directions contained in Ext.P6 judgment

and communicated the same to the petitioner before issuing

Ext.P7 notice.

3. On 22.01.2021, the learned Government Pleader, on

instructions, submitted that though the direction in Ext.P6

judgment is to the 2nd respondent Assistant Executive Engineer,

decision was taken by the Assistant Engineer, who thereafter

issued Ext.P7 notice. The learned counsel for the petitioner

sought time to file an application to implead the Assistant WP(C)No.1663 of 2021

Engineer, who issued Ext.P7 notice, as an additional respondent.

4. On 09.02.2021, the learned Government Pleader

sought time to produce a copy of the order dated 06.02.2021

issued by the 2nd respondent Assistant Executive Engineer, along

with a memo. Thereafter, on 12.02.2021, the learned counsel for

the petitioner sought time to file an application to amend the writ

petition in order to challenge the order dated 06.02.2021 of the

2nd respondent.

5. On 25.02.2021, when this writ petition came up for

consideration, I.A.No.2 of 2021 filed by the petitioner seeking an

order to amend the writ petition was allowed and the Registry

was directed to carry out the amendment.

6. Today, when the matter was taken up for

consideration, this Court noticed that the amendment, as sought

for in I.A.No.2 of 2021, is not sufficient in order to challenge the

order dated 06.02.2021 of the 2nd respondent. The learned

counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ

petition, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to file a

fresh writ petition to challenge the order dated 06.02.2021 of the

2nd respondent.

WP(C)No.1663 of 2021

Recording the above submission made by the learned

counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed as

withdrawn, without prejudice to the aforesaid right of the

petitioner.

Sd/-

ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE

yd