K. G. Sasidharan vs. The State Of Kerala Higher Education Department Secretary
AI Summary
Get an AI-powered analysis of this court order
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order
Order Text
\236 1
| ITEM NO.29 | COURT NO.13 | SECTION XIA |
|---|---|---|
| S U P R E M E | C O U R T<br>O F<br>RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS | I N D I A |
| Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).27244 &<br>35223/2010 | ||
| SASIKALA DEVI P | Petitioner(s) | |
| VERSUS | ||
| STATE OF KERALA & ANR | Respondent(s) | |
| (OFFICE REPORT ON DEFAULT) | ||
| Date: 07/04/2011<br>These Petitions were called on for hearing today. | ||
| CORAM :<br>HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. PANCHAL<br>(IN CHAMBERS) | ||
| For Petitioner(s) | Mr. A. Raghunath,Adv.<br>Mr. V.K. Sidharthan,Adv. | |
| For Respondent(s) | ||
| Mr. P.V. Dinesh,Adv.<br>Mr. M.T. George, Adv. | ||
| UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following<br>O R D E R | ||
| The office report dated March 29, 2011 states | ||
| that the learned counsel for the petitioners has | ||
| not paid process fee of Rs.10/- with one spare copy | ||
| of special leave petition within the period of one | ||
| week<br>for | issue<br>of<br>fresh<br>notice | upon<br>unserved |
| respondent No. 2. | However, the learned counsel for<br>2 | |
| the petitioners states that process fee was paid | ||
| and spare copy<br>was filed on 1.3.2011. | ||
| Having<br>regard | to<br>the<br>facts | of<br>the<br>case, |
| delay of 5 days, caused | in paying the process fee | |
| and filing spare copy, is condoned. | ||
| The office report further mentions that in | ||
| SLP©<br>No.<br>35223/2010 | the<br>learned<br>counsel | for<br>the |
petitioner has not filed affidavit with proof of dasti service in respect of respondent Nos. 3 to 5 but the learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has filed an affidavit on March 7, 2011 with proof of dasti service in respect of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 stating therein that respondent No. 3 has been served with the notice whereas respondent No. 4 is reported to be dead. Further as per the office report, the learned counsel for the petitioners has not filed affidavit with proof of dasti in respect of respondent No. 5 and has also not taken steps to bring on record the Lrs of deceased Respondent No. 4 so far. The learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to take appropriate steps to remove the defects, as mentioned in the office report, within four weeks from today failing which the SLP(C) No. 35223/2010 shall stand dismissed for default. (Sonia) (Sneh Bala Mehra)
Sr P.A. Court Master