Sherly @ Philomina vs The State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 2904 Ker

WP(C) No.8122/2020                            1/1

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                        PRESENT
                     THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
            Wednesday, the 16th day of March 2022 / 25th Phalguna, 1943
                      IA.NO.1/2022 IN WP(C) NO. 8122 OF 2020
   APPLICANTS/RESPONDENTS IN W.P.(C):

      1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT
         SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
      2. THE REVENUE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
      3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, IDUKKI-685 602.
      4. THE TAHSILDAR (LAND ASSIGNMENT), TALUK OFFICE, PEERUMEDU, IDUKKI
         DISTRICT-685 531.

   RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN W.P.(C):

          SHERLY @ PHILOMINA, D/O. ALBERT, FLAT NO.6B2, NATIONAL RESIDENCY,
          EDAPPALLI, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682024.


        Application praying that in the circumstances stated in the
   affidavit filed therewith the High Court be pleased to extent a further
   period of six months from 19.02.2022 for the compliance of the judgment
   dated 27.10.2021 in W.P.(C) No.8122/2020.


        This Application coming on for orders upon perusing the application
   and the affidavit filed in support thereof, and this court's judgment
   dated 27-10-2021 and upon hearing the arguments of SRI. JAFFR KHAN, SENIOR
   GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the petitioners in I.A./ Respondents in WP(C) and
   of M/s. N.G.SINDHU and R.SURAJ KUMAR, Advocates for the Respondent in
   I.A./ Petitioner in WP(C), the court passed the following:

                                         ORDER

This application seeking extension of time is opposed by Sri. B.H.Mansoor- learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner, saying that the judgment was delivered on 27.10.2021 directing the exercise ordered therein to be completed in three months but that nothing has been done even though more than five months have been elapsed.

In response, Sri. Jafar Khan- learned Senior Government Pleader, submitted that action to comply with the directions in the judgment has already been initiated and notice issued but that due to certain administrative and other reasons, further six months time is required.

As rightly stated by Sri. B.H.Mansoor, this Court had fixed three months for compliance.

Obviously, therefore, the time now sought for by the respondents cannot be found to be justified.

Resultantly, I extend the time frame for compliance of the directions in the judgment by a further period of four months from 19.02.2022.

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE

16-03-2022 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar