Rajan Erattakulangara vs Union Of India Represented By ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1374 Ker

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                            PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

  WEDNESDAY,THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021/23TH POUSHA,1942

                    WP(C).No.1040 OF 2018(D)

PETITIONER:

              RAJAN ERATTAKULANGARA, PROPRIETOR,
              M/S. RAJAN EK SECURITY AGENCY,
              AMBADI BUILDING,KAKKUR,KOZHIKODE - 673 613.

              BY ADVS.
              SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL)
              SRI.A.R.DILEEP
              SRI.P.J.JOE PAUL
              SRI.MANU SEBASTIAN

RESPONDENTS:

     1        UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO
              THE MINISTRY OF DEFENCE,NEW DELHI - 110 001.

     2        DIRECTORATE GENERAL RESETTLEMENT,MINISTRY OF
              DEFENCE,GOVERNMENT OF INDIA - 110 066.

     3        JOINT DIRECTOR (EMP),DIRECTORATE GENERAL
              RESETTLEMENT, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE,
              GOVERNMENT OF INDIA - 110 066.

     4        DEPUTY MANAGER (PROJECTS),BHARAT PETROLEUM
              CORPORATION LIMITED,KOCHI REFINERY,
              AMBALAMUGAL,KOCHI - 682 302.

     5        CHIEF MANAGER, ITI LIMITED,
              KANJIKODE WEST, PALAKKAD - 678 623.

              R1-R3 BY SRI.A.R.GANGADAS, CGC
              BY SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASGI
              R4 BY ADV. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
              R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI
              R4 BY ADV. SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN
              R4 BY ADV. SRI.KURYAN THOMAS
              R4 BY ADV. SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 13.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) No.1040/2018
                                :2 :




                        JUDGMENT

~~~~~~~~~

Dated this the 13th day of January, 2021

Petitioner seeks to quash Exts.P12 and P13 and to

direct respondents 2 and 3 to revive and keep in operation his

sponsorship to respondents 4 and 5.

2. When this writ petition came up for hearing today,

the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the period

of contracts in question, have already expired. Therefore,

practically this writ petition has become infructuous, except for

the questions of law raised by the petitioner.

Since the period of contract stands expired, this

Court do not deem it necessary to adjudicate the matter.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. The

questions of law raised by the petitioner are left open.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

aks/13.01.2021