AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J
The above writ petition is filed with following prayers:
“i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents to repay the deposit amount in the account forthwith with interest to the petitioner, his wife and daughter.
ii) Issue a direction to the respondents to initiate appropriate action against the officers who are responsible for the misappropriation of the above said amount of the petitioner, his wife and daughter.
iii) Issue any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the case.” (Sic)
When this writ petition came up for consideration on 13.12.2012 this Court passed the following order.
“Admit. Learned Assistant Solicitor General of India takes notice for the respondents.
The petitioner has filed I.A.No.16037/2012 wherein a direction is sought to the 2nd respondent to furnish the name and address of the postal employees from whom the amount has been withdrawn from the post office from the account number and the amount given in the I.A.
Heard the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India. There will be a direction to the respondents to furnish the same by filing an affidavit before this Court within a period of ten days.
Post immediately after vacation.
Hand over to both sides.”
Thereafter on 22.01.2014 another order was passed by this Court, which is also extracted here:
“Heard both the sides. But for the contention that the signature was almost similar as that of the petitioner, there is no case for the respondents that, it is the signature of the petitioner or that the petitioner has any role or contribution in the fraud or forgery.
After hearing both sides and also after going through the pleadings and proceedings, in so far as there is no dispute with regard to the amount deposited by the petitioner and further that the amount stated as disbursed by the respondents have not come to the hands of the petitioner, there will be a direction to the respondents to disburse the due amount deposited by the petitioner in the account as stated in Ext.P1 complaint within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
It is made clear that the respondents are at liberty to proceed with further steps for recovering the loss, if any, in this regard from the actual defaulters/culprits by proceeding against them and also against their properties. The course and defence to be pursued with regard to ‘prayer No.2’ sought for in the writ petition will be considered in the due course.”
The order dated 22.01.2014 was challenged by filing WA No.1022 of 2014, which was dismissed as per judgment dated 30.10.2019. It will be better to extract the judgment in WA No.1022 of 2014 here:
“Being aggrieved by the order made in W.P.(C) No.19158 of 2012 dated 22.01.2014, instant appeal is preferred with a delay of 152 days in filing. C.M Appln. No.536 of 2014 is filed for condonation. Mr.P.Babu Kumar, learned counsel for the sole respondent, who is present in Court, is permitted to take notice. He has no objection for the delay being condoned. That apart, we are also satisfied with the reasons assigned in the affidavit accompanying the condonation petition. Delay is condoned. Appeal is heard.
It is seen from the order impugned that while passing an interim order dated 22.01.2014 in W.P.(C) No.19158 of 2012, writ court, has made it clear that respondents are at liberty to proceed with by taking steps for recovering the loss, if any, in this regard from the actual defaulters/culprits by proceeding against them and also against their properties. At this stage, when the appeal came up for hearing, Miss. O.M.Shalina, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that acting on the directions stated supra, District Collector, Kottayam has been addressed to take steps for recovering the loss. Submission of learned counsel for the appellants is placed on record. In such circumstances, instant appeal becomes infructuous for the reason that the appellants cannot approbate and reprobate and it is not open to the appellants to seek for setting aside the impugned order.
In the light of the above discussions, writ appeal is dismissed.”
In the light of the above judgment, nothing survives in this writ petition. Therefore, this writ petition is closed recording the order dated 22.01.2014, which is confirmed in WA No.1022 of 2014 dated 30.10.2019.