Visakh B.T vs Handicrafts Development Corporation ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 13367 Ker

Kerala High Court

Visakh B.T vs Handicrafts Development Corporation ... on 23 May, 2024

Author: Devan Ramachandran

Bench: Devan Ramachandran

WP(C) No.37545/2023                            1/1

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                         PRESENT
                      THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
              Thursday, the 23rd day of May 2024 / 2nd Jyaishta, 1946
                      IA.NO.1/2024 IN WP(C) NO. 37545 OF 2023
   APPLICANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2:

      1. HANDICRAFTS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION KERALA LTD., POST BOX. NO. 171,
         PUTHENCHANTHAI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
         DIRECTOR.
      2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, HANDICRAFTS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONOF KERALA
         LTD., POST BOX NO. 171, PUTHENCHANTHAI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
         695001.

   RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 3RD RESPONDENT:

      1. VISAKH B.T., AGED 27 YEARS, S/O. BHUVANENDRAN, PUTHUVAL HOUSE,
         TC48/314 M, PARUTHIKKUZHI , POONTHURA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN
         - 695026.
      2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF
         KERALA, SECREATARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001.


        Application praying that in the circumstances stated in the
   affidavit filed therewith the High Court be pleased to grant an extension
   of time for compliance of the judgment dated 13.11.2023 in W.P.(C)
   No.37545 of 2023 by a further period of six months from the date of this
   petition, in the interest of justice.


        This Application coming on for orders upon perusing the application
   and the affidavit filed in support thereof, and this Court's judgment
   dated 13.11.2023 and upon hearing the arguments of SMT. LATHA ANAND,
   STANDING COUNSEL for Applicants in I.A./ R1 and R2 in WP(C), SRI.
   SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR, Advocate for the R1 in I.A./Petitioner in
   WP(C) and of GOVERNMENT PLEADER for R2 in I.A./ R3 in WP(C), the court
   passed the following:

                                          ORDER

This application for extension of time is opposed, saying that the period sought for is excessive.

I find some force in the objection, since the time frame fixed in the judgment was only four months. I, therefore, allowed this application, granting four months from 16.03.2024.

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE

23-05-2024 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar