IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2011 / 15TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 16568 of 2011(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BALARAMAN,S/O.CHEKKU, AGED 63 YEARS,KADAYANKOTTU, VADAKARA VILLAGE,VATAKARA TALUK BY ADV. SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL SRI.P.S.BINU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- DISTRICT JUDGE, KOZHKODE THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY OF PLEARER'S CLERK PIN-673001 GP SMT. RAJASHREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 16568 of 2011 APPENDIX EXHIBITS EXT.P1- THE TRUE COPY OF THE PLEADER'S IDENTITY CARD ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER EXT.P2- THE TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER EXT.P3- THE TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED REPRESENTATION DATED 27.7.10 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT EXT.P4- THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER (True Copy) P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).16568/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 6th day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioner submits that he was working as a Pleader's clerk. It is stated that from 2003 onwards, he did not renew his identity card. On resuming the work as pleader's clerk, he made Ext.P3 representation for renewal of Ext.P1 identity card. Complaining that steps were not taken on Ext.P3, that the writ petition was filed. 2. A report was obtained from the respondent, the relevant portion of which reads as under:- “On submission of the application before my predecessor, he returned the same with a direction to get an affidavit from the petitioner to the effect that he had remained unemployed for a period from 1.1.2004 to 20.2.2010, as the petitioner had not worked as Advocate Clerk during the above period and the matter was intimated to the petitioner accordingly on 25.6.2011.” W.P.(C).16568/11 2 3. When the matter was taken up, the learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner has received an intimation to file an affidavit as mentioned above. Therefore, as at present, the application filed by the petitioner has been returned to cure the defect and it is for the petitioner to re-submit the same, after rectifying the defects pointed out. 4. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of clarifying that it will be open to the petitioner to rectify the defect and there upon, the same will be dealt with in accordance with law. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs