Biju Kuriakose vs State Of Kerala
2024 Latest Caselaw 8898 Ker

Kerala High Court

Biju Kuriakose vs State Of Kerala on 27 March, 2024

Author: P Gopinath

Bench: P Gopinath

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
    WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1946
                        WP(C) NO. 25380 OF 2014
PETITIONER/S:

    1     BIJU KURIAKOSE, S/O. KURIAKOSE, THARAMADATHIL,
          THIRUMARADI.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686662.
    2     SUNIL.K.U.
          KALLATTU KUZHIYIL, KAKKOOR.
          BY ADVS.
          SRI.S.VINOD BHAT
          SRI.LEGITH T.KOTTAKKAL


RESPONDENT/S:

    1     STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT,
          SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
    2     PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
          CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERANAKULAM, KOCHI-682030.
    3     AGRICULTURAL OFFICER
          OFFICE OF THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, THIRUMARADI-686662.
    4     V.M. ALEXANDER
          VANDANATH HOUSE, OLIYAPPURAM-686679.
    5     SAJU VARGHESE
          MADAKKALIL HOUSE, KAKKOOR-686662.
          BY ADVS.
          GOVERNMENT PLEADER
          SRI.JOSE TOM C. KANDATHIL




          SRI. BINOY DAVIS (GP)


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27.03.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 25380 OF 2014                      2



                                     JUDGMENT

This writ petition was filed in the year 2014, challenging

Ext.P1 proceedings which is the proceedings of the Principal

Agricultural Officer, Ernakulam, reconstituting the Karshika

Vikasana Samithi of Thirumaradi Grama Panchayat by removing

the petitioners and appointing two other persons in their place.

2. The order under challenge was issued on 07.08.2014. It

is evident that, by passage of time, the reliefs sought for in the

writ petition have become infructuous. Learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner seeks further time to get instructions.

However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case

noticed above, I am of the view that this writ petition need not be

adjourned to enable the counsel for the petitioners to obtain

instructions.

The writ petition is, therefore, closed, making it clear that if

the petitioners have any subsisting grievance, it will be open to

the petitioners to apply to this Court for reopening of the writ

petition. All contentions taken by the petitioners are left open for

consideration.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P., JUDGE ajt

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25380/2014

PETITIONER EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE ORDER NO. T.B.(2) 392/12 DATED 7-8-2014 OF 2ND RESPONDENT.

P2. COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 23-9-2014 SENT BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.

P3. COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 23-9-2014 SENT BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.

P4. COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER NO. MS 208/2012 AGRL. DATED 25-8-2012.