Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 10157 Ker
Judgement Date : 25 March, 2021
IA/1/2021 IN WP(C) 26594/2020 1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Present:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
Thursday, the 25th day of March 2021/4th Chaithra, 1943
IA/1/2021 IN WP(C)/26594/2020
APPLICANT/RESPONDENT 1 IN WP(C):
For information purpose only
THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 IN WP(C):
1. MANOJ KUMAR. P, AGED 47 YEARS
S/O.LATE VELAYUDHAN NAIR,
PART TIME DEMONSTRATOR (TEMPORARY),
FOOD CRAFT INSTITUTE, THIRUR,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 101,
RESIDING AT PUTHIYOTTIL HOUSE,
CHATHAMANGALAM (PO), KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 601.
2. THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF FOOD CRAFT INSTITUTE,
DOOR NO.2, DEVI, T.C. NO.15/145(1), ALTHARA, VELLAYAMBALAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 005.
3. THE PRINCIPAL, FOOD CRAFT INSTITUTE,
THIRUR P.O., MALAPPURAM-676 102.
Application praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith the
High Court be pleased to extend that time limit prescribed the judgment in
W.P.(C)No.26594/2020 by a further period of 3 months from 17.02.2021.
This application coming on for orders upon perusing the application and the affidavit
filed in support thereof, and this Court's judgment dated 01.12.2020 in
WP(C)26594/2020 and upon hearing the arguments of SENIOR GOVERNMENT
PLEADER for the Applicant in I.A./R1 in WP(C), M/S.M.V.THAMBAN, THARA
THAMBAN, ARUN BOSE, B.BIPIN & R.REJI, Advocates for R1 in I.A./Petitioner in
WP(C) and of STANDING COUNSEL for R2 & R3 in I.A./WP(C), the court passed the
following:
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
-----------------------------------------
I.A. No.1/2021
in
For information purpose only
W.P.(C) No.26594/2020
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of March, 2021
ORDER
This application has been filed to extend the time frame in the judgment
by three months from 17.02.2021. The affidavit in support of this I.A. avers
that since the request of the writ petitioner entails regularisation of service, it
is necessary to consult "with various advisory departments in
Government"(sic). It, thereafter, avers that the sudden outbreak of the
COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the functioning of the various
departments and therefore, that further time is required.
I notice that the writ petitioner's prayer, as recorded in the judgment,
was for regularisation because he is over - aged and since his child is
suffering from debilitating cerebral palsy and cognitive impairment up to
81.3% .
I am, therefore, of the view that a decision in this case will have to be
taken at the earliest. Consequently, I cannot find the request now made by the
petitioner to be apposite and am of the view that an extension of not more
than two months would be justified.
I.A. No.1/2021 in W.P.(C) No.26594/2020
In the afore circumstances, this I.A is allowed, extending the time frame in
the judgment by two months from 17.02.2021.
For information purpose only Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN,
SAS/25/03/2021 JUDGE
/true copy/ Sd/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!