Varghese vs Jolly P.V
2021 Latest Caselaw 21517 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI
                                  &
               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
        FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021/7TH KARTHIKA, 1943
                     WRIT APPEAL NO.1673 OF 2017
  (AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.7.2017 IN W.P.(C)No.17412/2017
                 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM)
        APPELLANT/1ST PETITIONER IN THE W.P.(C):

             VARGHESE, S/O.VARGHESE, AGED 59 YEARS,
             PUTHUKKAD HOUSE, MANNAMTHURUTHU, VARAPUZHA P.O,
             ERNAKULAM DIST-683 517.
             BY ADVS.
             SRI.JOHNSON MANAYANI
             SRI.JEEVAN MATHEW MANAYANI

        RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN THE W.P.(C):

    1        JOLLY P.V, MARATHOMTHARA VEEDU, MANNAMTHURUTHU,
             VARAPUZHA P.O, ERNAKULAM DIST-683 517.
    2        JOSEPH, PUTHUVEETIL HOUSE, MANNAMTHURUTHU,
             VARAPUZHA P.O, ERNAKULAM DIST-683 517
    3        DR.SUNNY THALIATH, GEETHANJALY, CANAL ROAD,
             KARUMALOOR P.O, ERNAKULAM DIST-683 511.
    4        ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
             ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, K.S.E.B,
             VARAPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DIST-683 517.
    5        KERALA STATE ELETRICITY BOARD,
             REP BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDUTHI BHAVAN,
             PATTOM P.O, TRIVANDRUM-695 001.
    6        ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
             ERNAKULAM CIVIL STATION, KAKKANADU P.O.,
             ERNAKULAM-682 030.
    7        STATE OF KERALA, REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
             SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001.
             SRI.DEEPAK MOHAN - FOR R3
             SRI.ARUN AJAY SHANKAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

        THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.10.2021,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
         W.A. No.1673 of 2017

                                     2




                               JUDGMENT

S.V.Bhatti, J

Mr.Jeevan Mathew Manayani, learned counsel for the

appellant/1st petitioner in the writ petition, submits

that the prayer in the writ petition has become

infructuous. The statement is placed on record.

Accordingly the Writ Appeal is dismissed as

infructuous.

Sd/-

S.V.BHATTI, JUDGE

Sd/-

BASANT BALAJI, JUDGE ss