Kerala High Court
Jalaja N vs The District Collector on 2 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
Tuesday, the 2nd day of November 2021 / 11th Karthika, 1943
IA.NO.1/2021 IN WP(C) NO. 18656 OF 2013(F)
APPLICANTS/RESPONDENTS NOS.1 & 2 IN WPC:
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE-673020.
2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(LA), QUILANDY, KOZHIKODE-673620.
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 3RD RESPONDENT IN WPC:
1. JALAJA N., AGED 44 YEARS, W/O.P.BABU KARTHIKEYAN,
'VIGNESWARA', 22ND MILE, MANJERI-676121.
2. THE KERALA INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURAL CORPORATION (KINFRA),
T.C.NO.31/2312, KINFRA HOUSE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695010.
Application praying that in the circumstances stated in the
affidavit filed therewith the High Court be pleased to extend
the time limit stipulated in the Judgment in WP(C) No.18656/2013
dated 26.05.2014 by a further period of 6 months from
07.10.2021.
This Application coming on for orders upon perusing the
application and the affidavit filed in support thereof, and this
Court's Judgement dated 26.05.2021 and upon hearing the
arguments of SMT.AMMINIKUTTY K, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
the Applicants in IA/Respondents 1 & 2 in WP(C)
M/S.P.B.KRISHNAN, N.AJITH, GEETHA P.MENON, P.M.NEELAKANDAN &
P.B.SUBRAMANYAN, Advocates for the Respondent 1 in IA/petitioner
in WP(C) and of SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH Advocate for the respondent 2
in IA/Respondent 3 in WP(C), the court passed the following:
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
=========================
I.A.No.1/2021 in W.P.(C) No.18656 of 2013
==========================
Dated this the 2nd day of November, 2021
ORDER
This application has been filed seeking extension of time
for compliance of the directions in the judgment in W.P.(C)
No.18656/2013, by a period of six months from 07.10.2021.
2. However, Sri.P.B.Krishnan, learned counsel appearing
for the writ petitioner, submitted that this application is not
maintainable because, as per the judgment in question, the
time fixed was three months from its receipt, namely in the
year 2014. He submitted that, therefore, the extension now
sought for is not merely six months, but more than eight
years, reckoning the time fixed in the judgment. He then
explained that when the judgment was not complied with, his
client had filed a Contempt of Court Case before this Court,
in which, by way of an indulgence, a further two months time
had been granted. He submitted that, therefore, the
respondents cannot seek an extension of time in the writ
petition, when the earlier extension was granted in the
Contempt Case.
3. Even though I find substantial force in the
submissions of Sri.P.B.Krishnan, the fact remains that action
I.A.No.1/2021 in W.P.(C) No.18656 of 2013
in terms of the judgment must be completed, for his client
to obtain any relief.
4. Certainly, the time now sought for by the
petitioners in this application does not appear to be
reasonable, particularly when the original time frame in
the judgment was only three months.
5. I, therefore, allow this application, granting three
months time from today, for the respondents to complete
the processes as ordered in the judgment dated
26.05.2014.
I make it clear that no further extension will be
considered or granted and that the petitioners herein will
have to complete the exercise within the aforementioned
time.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN,
JUDGE
stu
02-11-2021 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
