Kalloo R Electronics And Lighting vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 11384 Ker

WP(C) NO. 9148 OF 2017               1




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
   FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944
                         WP(C) NO. 9148 OF 2017




PETITIONER/S:

    1     KALLOOR ELECTRONICS AND LIGHTING
          REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR-JACOB.K.JACOB,
          A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT,
          HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT MUNDAKAYAM,
          KOTTAYAM-686 516

    2     M/S.INDRIYA TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED
          NILA, 643, 6TH FLOOR , TECHNOPARK CAMPUS
          KAZHAKKOOTTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
          REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR

          BY ADV SRI.P.RAVEENDRAN PILLAI


RESPONDENT/S:

    1     STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
          DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS
          STATE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001

    2     THE SECRETARY
          DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES
          STATE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001

    3     THE KERALA SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
          (SIDCO), HOUSING BOARD BUILDING,
          SHANTI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
 WP(C) NO. 9148 OF 2017            2




    4     THE CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
          REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION, VIKAS BHAVAN,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001

          BY ADVS.
          SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON SR.
          BIJU G., SC, SIDCO
          SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY, SC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION
          SRI. P.K. MANOJ KUMAR, SC
          SRI. M. RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 9148 OF 2017                       3



                                    JUDGMENT

When this writ petition was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel

appearing for the respondents submitted that the reliefs sought in this writ petition

have become infructuous.

None appeared for the petitioners.

This writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE NS