AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J
The above writ petition is filed with following reliefs:
i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to cancel the auction of rubber trees held on 28.4.2010.
ii) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction, quashing Exhibit P4.
iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to not cut and remove the rubber trees pending disposal of OA No.12/10.
iv) Issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the nature and circumstance of the case."
When the matter came up for consideration on 04.05.2010 this Court passed an interim order of stay. Subsequently, the interim order was vacated by this Court on
03.06.2010, which reads thus:
"In view of the averments in the statement filed on behalf of the respondents, I am not inclined to extend the stay. Interim stay is vacated."
Thereafter, the matter came up for consideration before this Court on 07.11.2019. On that day, this Court passed the following order:
"Since the counsel for the petitioner expired, Registry shall issue notice to the petitioner.
Post immediately after service is complete."
Today, when the matter came up for consideration, Registry informed that notice issued to the 1st petitioner returned stating that the addressee expired and notice issued to the 2nd petitioner is not returned after service.
Today, there is no representation.
I think there is no grievance to the petitioners. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for default.