IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2011 / 3RD ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 3421 of 2011(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.K.EPHRAIM ALIAS APPREAM, S/O.KUNJUVAREED, AGED 46 YEARS, AMBOOKKAM HOUSE, P.O.POYYA, TRICHUR DISTRICT-680 733. BY ADVS. SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY SRI.R.SANJITH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, FISHERIES AND PORTS DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 1. 2. AGENCY FOR DEVELOPMENT OF AQUACULTURE KERALA, T.C.15/1494, VASHUTHCADU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 14. 3. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ADAK, T.C.15/1494, VASHUTHCADU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 14. 4. FARM MANAGER, MODEL SHRIMP FARM AND TRAINING CENTRE, (AGENCY FOR DEVELOPMENT OF AQUACULTURE KERALA), POYYA, MALA (VIA), THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 733. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SANDESH RAJA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 3421/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPIES OF THE DETAILS OF THE EMPLOYEES W0ORKING ON DAILY WAGES AND CONTRACT BASIS. P2 : COPY OF THE DUTY SCHEDULE-OUTLET SLUES. P3 : COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE 4TH RESONDENT SPECIFYING THE DATE ON WHICH THE PETITONER WAS ENGAGED. P4 : COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEARING NO.MSF/445/09-10 DATED 18/01/2011. P5 : COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER BEARING NO. G.O. (MS) 69/2010/F&PD DATED 04/09/2010. P6 : COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.ADAK/C/3198/07 DATED 08/09/2010. P7 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20/09/2010. P8 : COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.ADAK/C/3198/07 DATED 27/09/2010 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P9 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25/11/2010 P10 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20/12/2010. P11 : COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE smvd S.SIRI JAGAN, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 3421 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of June 2011. JUDGMENT Counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo to the effect that since the respondents themselves have granted the relief prayed for by the petitioner, petitioner does not want to prosecute the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed. S.SIRI JAGAN JUDGE al