Kerala High Court
R.Purushothaman vs The Estate Officer on 3 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
Wednesday, the 3rd day of November 2021 / 12th Karthika, 1943
IA.NO.2/2021 IN WA NO. 1167 OF 2021
AGAINST JUDGMENT DATED 27.08.2021 IN WP(C) 15998/2021 OF THIS COURT.
---
PETITIONER/APPELLANT:
R.PURUSHOTHAMAN,AGED 60 YEARS,S/O.S.RAMALINGAM,
QUARTER NO.502/08,FACT (CD) TOWNSHIP,AMBALAMEDU P.O.,
ERNAKULAM, PIN-682303.
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENTS:
1.THE ESTATE OFFICER , THE FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICAL TRAVANCORE,
COCHIN DIVISION, AMABALAMEDU.
2.TEH FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICAL TRAVANCORE LTD(FACT LTD.),
REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,
HAVING OFFICE AT UDYOGAMANDALAM, ERNAKULAM-683501.
3.MANAGIND DIRECTOR, KERALA INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, KINFRA HOUSE,31/2312,
SASTHAMANGALAM, TRIVANDRUM-695010.
Application praying that in the circumstances stated in the
affidavit filed therewith the High Court be pleased to enlarge three weeks
to vacate the Quarter No.502/08 FACT (CD) Township, Ambalamedu P.O.,
Ernakulam District, in the interest of justice.
This Application coming on for orders on 03/11/2021 upon perusing
the application and the affidavit filed in support thereof and this
Court's Judgment dated 27/09/2021 in W.A.No.1167/2021 and upon hearing the
arguments of M/S.JOY C. PAUL & BOBBY GEORGE, Advocates for the petitioner
and of M/S.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, JOHN MATHAI K.,JOSON MANAVALAN,KURYAN
THOMAS,PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM & RAJA KANNAN, Advocates for the respondents 1 &
2 and of SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN, Standing Counsel for the respondent 3, the
court passed the following:
P.T.O.
ALEXANDER THOMAS & VIJU ABRAHAM, JJ.
=================================================
I.A. No. 2 of 2021
in
W.A. No. 1167 of 2021
[arising out of impugned judgment dated 27.8.2021 in WP(C) No. 15998/2021]
=================================================
Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2021
ORDER
Heard both sides. This is an application for time extension to
enable the applicant/appellant to enjoy a further period of 3 weeks to
vacate the quarters which he had been occupying even after expiry of one
year consequent to his retirement.
2. The counsel for the applicant fervently pleas that time
extension may be granted as sought for in the I.A. The plea for time
extension has been strongly opposed by Sri.M.Gopikrishnan Nambiar,
learned Standing Counsel for the FACT, appearing for the respondents in
the I.A.
3. The applicant in the I.A./appellant has retired from service as
early as in April, 2019. He was duty bound to vacate the quarters
immediately thereafter. He has overstayed in the quarters even after 2½
years after his retirement. He has even suffered an eviction order issued
by the statutory Estate Officer in terms of the provisions contained in the
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, and he
had suppressed before this Court the factum regarding the said statutory
I.A. No. 2/2021 in W.A. No. 1167/2021
eviction order issued in such statutory proceedings.
4. Taking a very sympathetic stand and despite opposition from
other side, this Court as per judgment rendered on 27.9.2021 in the above
W.A., has granted him two weeks time to vacate the premises subject to
the condition he should file an unconditional affidavit/undertaking that
he would vacate the premises within said time, etc. We are apprised by
the learned Standing Counsel for the FACT, that the applicant/appellant
had in fact filed such an affidavit/undertaking, but he has not cared to
comply with the directions issued by this Court to vacate the premises
within said period.
5. In the light of these aspects, it will not be right and proper on
our part to grant further extension of time. Hence, the above application
will stand dismissed.
Hand over.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM, JUDGE
MMG
03-11-2021 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
