Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 33916
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J
Ernakulam Jilla Cheruvanchi Matsya Thozhilali Union – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 14669 OF 2015
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P.L.Devadas, Venkatesh Gopi
For the Respondents: Namitha Jyothish, T.A.Shaji, K.P.Sheeba, Preetha K K
A writ petition may be closed when the underlying grievances are rendered infructuous and the petitioner fails to pursue the matter before the court.
Headnote:The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the local Panchayat to issue fishing licenses to its members, to restrain resort owners from discharging effluents into the water body, and to direct the removal of obstructions caused by poles in the area. The petitioner, a labor union, sought relief against alleged environmental violations and administrative inaction. The core issues framed were whether the petitioner was entitled to the issuance of fishing licenses and whether the court should intervene in the maintenance and regulation of the water body. The court, noting the lack of representation for the petitioner and a submission from the respondent that the matter had become infructuous, determined that the petition did not require further adjudication. The writ petition was closed, rendering the prayers infructuous.
JUDGMENT
The above Writ Petition (C) is filed with the following prayers:
"(i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction directing the Panchayath for issuing fishing licence to the members of the petitioner union who have already applied for the same.
(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the Panchayath restraining the resort owner or tourist home owners from discharging affluents in to the Poyil.
(iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the Panchayath and Fisheries Department to remove the oonni pole situated in the Poyil which are creating disturbance to the fisherman who are using canoes and the passengers who are travelling through the Poyil. ”
[SIC]
There is no representation for the petitioner. The counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent Panchayat submitted that the prayers in this writ petition is infructuous. I think this writ petition need not be retained here. Therefore, this writ petition is closed.
