IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 14TH AUGUST 2009 / 23RD SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 5382 of 2008(N) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------------- M.R.PAVITHRAN, S/O.RAMAN NAMBIAR, U.D.INVESTIGATOR, TALUK STATISTICAL OFFICER, THALIPARAMBA (RESIDING AT SWANTHANAM, TRICHAMBARAM, THALIPARAMBA) BY ADV. SRI.SAJIV C.KRISHNAN RESPONDENTS : ------------------------- 1. DISTRICT STATISTICAL OFFICER, KANNUR DISTRICT ECONOMIC AND STATISTIC OFFICE, KANNUR. 2. THE SECRETARY, THE KANNUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KANNUR 670001. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE KANNUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., KARUVANCHAL BRANCH, KARUVANCHAL. 4. MOLY JOSE, W/O. JOSE, CHIRAMEL HOUSE, VADUKARA, TRICHUR DISTRICT. SMT. SMITHA SUKUMAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 5382 of 2008(N) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.MTM/548 DATED 24/11/2007 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE SALARY CERTIFICATE DATED 17/12/2007 OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT PUBLISHED IN RESPECT OF AKHILA, THE DAUGHTER OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4: TRUE OF THE CT SCAN REPORT DATED 28/05/2006 IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE rhs S. SIRI JAGAN, J ............................................... W.P(C) No. 5382 of 2008 ................................................. Dated this the 14th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The writ petition comes up in the defect list noting the defect that the notice issued to the 4th respondent has been returned with the endorsement “not known”. Although defect has been noted as early as on 4.3.2008, no steps have been taken to take out notice to the 4th respondent in the correct address. When the matter was taken up today, in the morning, a representation was made on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner seeking time. But the counsel who represented did not even know what the defect was. Therefore, he submitted that the matter may be passed over. The case was again taken up twice at 11.15 and 11.40. Both times the counsel for the petitioner was absent. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for non prosecution. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE rhs