IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 27999 of 2011(Y) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER : --------------------- RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, S/O.GOPALAN NAIR, AGED 72, CHARIVUKALAYIL, KUMBAZHA, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADVS. SRI.SABU S.KALLARAMOOLA SRI.S.NIDHEESH RESPONDENTS : ------------------------- 1. THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, NANDANCODE, TRIVANDRUM-695 003. 2. THE SECRETARY, THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANDANCODE, TRIVANDRUM-695 003. 3. DEEPU, VADAKEDATHU VEEDU, OCHIRA-690 526. 4. PRAKASH, PLAKKATTU HOUSE, KUMBAZHA, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 653. R1 & R2 BY ADV. V.V. NANDAGOPALA NAMBIAR, SC, TDB. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DSV/- WP(C).No. 27999 of 2011(Y) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 : COPY OF THE RECEIPTS DATED 06.10.2011. EXHIBIT P2 : COPY OF THE KUTHAKAVIVARAM DATED 22.08.2011. EXHIBIT P3 : COPY OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS DATED 22.08.2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE DSV/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.27999 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. The petitioner was the contractor of stall No.15 during the previous year. That was then an elaneer stall. On query by us, the petitioner's learned counsel candidly says that he does not have any material to show that the petitioner went and participated in the auction for this year. There is no material even to show that any money towards earnest or security was deposited. The plea is that during the current year, though the said shop was notified as an elaneer shop, that was auctioned out as a tea shop after shifting elaneer shop to Marakkoottam. We do not find any plea justiciable in writ jurisdiction. The plea projected by the petitioner is not sufficient to sustain the request for a writ, direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On this short premise, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN Judge Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS/17.11