VELAYUDHAN Vs. DISTRICT GEOLOGIST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above writ petition was sought to be withdrawn by the learned Counsel who appeared for the petitioner, through a memo dated 22.06.2017; by not pressing the writ petition. However, the learned Government Pleader submitted at that point of time, that there is an enquiry initiated since the petitioner, shown in the cause title was deceased. The enquiry revealed the death of the petitioner, long time back, in the year 2009 and statements were taken from the son of the deceased who was in possession of the property as described in the memorandum. It was further revealed that there is no pond existing in the property, the Survey Number and description of which is given in the writ petition and that there were other persons involved in the matter. The son of the deceased petitioner who was in possession of the property had also given a statement that there was no water available in his property and he wanted to dig a pond for which he had entrusted a third party. It was also stated that he had not filed any case before the High Court. In such circumstance, this Court refused to allow the writ petition to be withdrawn and directed the son of the deceased petitioner to be present in Court .

(2.) The son of the deceased petitioner appeared before this Court and produced the electoral card for identification. Sri. Raghavan, S/o. Velayudhan also submitted that the case was entrusted to Adv.Ziraj. The Advocate submitted before Court that there was a mistake occurred in the filing of the writ petition and that he has not signed the writ petition at all. It was alleged that the Clerk in the office of the Advocate had filed the above writ petition after taking the draft from the computer, which was not corrected and the original writ petition which was signed by the son of the deceased petitioner, had been misplaced and later destroyed with the other records in the office. This Court hence directed the learned Counsel to file an affidavit and also directed Sri. Raghavan to file an affidavit.

(3.) Sri. Raghavan has filed an affidavit dated 19.07.2017 admitting that the case was entrusted to the Advocate through another person; the statement of which third party was also obtained by the Police. It is also submitted that after the draft was prepared, the said Raghavan had personally come to the office of the Counsel and executed the Vakalath and affidavit and also signed in the writ petition after instructing the Advocate as to the necessary corrections to be made.