Bahadar Koya P.I vs Kavaratti Village (Dweep) ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 6256 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

    MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 3RD PHALGUNA, 1942

                      WP(C).No.33102 OF 2015(K)


PETITIONERS:

      1        BAHADAR KOYA P.I, S/O.KOJAN P.P
               PUTHIYA ILLAM, KAVARATTI ISLAND.

      2        ABDUL NAZEER.K., S/O.ABU SALA KOYA.K.
               IDANILAM HOUSE, KAVARATTI ISLAND.

      3        MAKBEEL K.P., S/O.AHMMAD A.P.
               KOTTEPURA HOUSE, KAVARATTI ISLAND.

               BY ADVS.
               SHRI.K.B.GANGESH
               SMT.ATHIRA A.MENON

RESPONDENTS:

      1        KAVARATTI VILLAGE (DWEEP) PANCHAYATH
               KAVARATTI, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON,
               PIN 682 555.

      2        EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KAVARATTI VILLAGE (DWEEP)
               PANCHAYATH, KAVARATTI 682 555.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.MANU.S, CGC
               SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN - SC

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD        ON
22.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WPC 33102/15
                                            2


                                    JUDGMENT

The petitioners have approached this Court

impugning Ext.P4, as per which, their services

were retrenched on account of the fact that

the bus in which they were engaged to work in,

had become non-pliable.

2. I notice that Ext.P4 is dated

27.10.2015; and when this matter was called

today, the learned counsel on either side were

unable to inform this Court as to the

developments that took place when this Writ

Petition had been pending for the last more

than six years.

3. I am, therefore, inferentially guided

to the suspicion that nothing remains in this

Writ Petition, particularly when Ext.P4 was

issued as early as in 2015. This is also

because I am certain that the factual

circumstances with respect to the bus must

have changed during the last more than five WPC 33102/15

years.

In the afore circumstances, I close this

Writ Petition without any further orders;

however, leaving liberty to the petitioners to

seek a re-hearing, if it is found necessary.

Sd/-

                                     DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
      RR                                   JUDGE
 WPC 33102/15



                           APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 P1: TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDERS ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER

EXHIBIT P2 P2:TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDERS ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER

EXHIBIT P3 P3:TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDERS ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER

EXHIBIT P4 P4: TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER F NO.3/4/2010VDP(KVT)/909 DATED 27/10/2015