Dr. M.Vasu vs the Thiruvananthapuram District Co-Operative Marketing and Processing Society Ltd. - Court Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 13TH POUSHA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 5671 OF 2013 PETITIONERS: 1 DR. M.VASU AGED 48 YEARS SANTHIKONATHU VEEDU, KODIPPURAM, PAZHAKUTTY P.O NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 541 2 LISAMMA V W/O.DR.M.VASU SANTHIKONATHU VEEDU, KODIPPURAM PAZHAKUTTY P.O, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 541 3 NAZEEMA KALAM NOORS VILLA KUNNATH, KAPPAM BY ADVS. SRI.K.J.SAJI ISAAC SRI.AJEESH EMMANUEL DR.ELIZABETH VARKEY RESPONDENTS: 1 THE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING AND PROCESSING SOCIETY LTD. NO.T 383,REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MARKET JUNCTION, NEDUMANGAD 695 541 2 REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001 3 DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001 BY ADV SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF OTHER PRESENT: ADV. RENJITH. T. R - SR. GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J --------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2023

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with the following prayers:-

(i) “Issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 3rd respondent to recover the amount covered under Exhibits P2 to P5.

(ii) Call for the records of the case and to pass appropriate orders;

(iii) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case including costs;” [SIC]

2. The writ petition is filed to issue an appropriate

direction to the 3rd respondent to recover the amount covered under Exts.P2 to P5. Exts.P2, P3, P4 and P5 are the Certificates of Revenue Recovery issued by the President, Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thiruvananthapuram, in the year 2011. Probably the prayers in this writ petition might have been infructuous. If there is any surviving grievance to the petitioner about the recovery of the amount, the petitioner is free to approach the 3 rd respondent with appropriate representation and the 3 rd respondent will do the needful in accordance with law. With the above observations, the writ petition is closed. Sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE TR APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5671/2013 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.13737 OF 2012 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE RECOVERY CERTIFICATE ISSUED IN E.P.NO.79 OF 2011 IN CC 68 OF EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RECOVERY CERTIFICATE ISSUED IN E.P.NO.80 OF 2011 IN CC.69 OF EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RECOVERY CERTIFICATE ISSUED IN E.P.NO.81 OF 2011 IN CC.70 OF EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RECOVERY CERTIFICATE ISSUED IN E.P.NO.78 OF 2011 CC 358 OF 2009. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.914 OF 2013 BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA