IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2011 / 8TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 720 of 2008(I) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ VILAPPIL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.2522, MAIN BRANCH PEYAD, TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, RICHARDSON S. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL ADMINISTRATION, ACCOUNTS (M) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. K.RAJENDRAN, PEON, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.M.MANOJ THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 720 OF 2008 -------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T This writ petition was admitted and notice issued on 7.1.2008. The notice issued to the second respondent was returned unserved with the endorsement “not known”. Later, by order passed on 14.12.2009, this Court directed that if the petitioner does not take steps to serve fresh notice on the second respondent in the correct address within one week, the writ petition would stand dismissed for default. The petitioner thereafter paid the process fee but did not furnish the correct address. Hence fresh notice was not sent. Thereafter the writ petition stood posted to 27.9.2010. On that day, this Court granted one weeks time to cure the defect. Later by order passed on 7.10.2010, the petitioner was granted three weeks further time to cure the defects. However the petitioner did not furnish the correct address and take steps to serve notice on the second respondent in the correct address. Instead, the petitioner took steps to serve notice on the second respondent in the former address to which notice was initially sent and was returned with the endorsement “not known”. WPC No.720/2008 2 2. Today when the writ petition was taken up for hearing, none appeared for the petitioner. There was also no representation on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In such circumstances, as the petitioner has not complied with the order passed by this Court on 14.12.2009 notwithstanding the repeated directions of this Court, the writ petition is dismissed for non- prosecution. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps WPC No.720/2008 3 WPC No.720/2008 4