IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2006 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1928 WP(C).No. 31149 of 2006(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ P.VASANTHI, W/O.JAYARAJAN, AGED 47 YEARS, PURTHEKUNDIL HOUSE, CHIRAKKU THAZHE POST, KIZHUNNA, KANNUR-7. BY ADV. SMT.K.K.CHANDRALEKHA SRI.SUDHEESH THAROL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. PROPRIETOR, POLY ROPES INDUSTRIES, THAZHE CHOVA, POST CHOVVA, KANNUR-6. 2. CONTROLLING AUTHORITY UNDER PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT (DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER), KANNUR. R2 BY G.P. SRI.I.V.PROMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2006, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.31149 of 2006 .................................................................... Dated this the 24th day of November, 2006. JUDGMENT The petitioner is challenging the order issued by the second respondent declining to reopen the case for further evidence of the petitioner. On going through the documents I find all what petitioner wants to prove is a profession tax receipt issued by a Panchayat. If petitioner has produced receipt issued by a statutory authority, petitioner can argue it's admissibility before second respondent without even proving it through witness. In any case since second respondent has closed the matter for orders, the petitioner is free to challenge the final order on issues raised in this W.P. also. The W.P. is accordingly closed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms