Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY versus K.P.MADHAVA MARAR (EX.SEP. NO.13821275)

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY v. K.P.MADHAVA MARAR (EX.SEP. NO.13821275) - WA No. 2263 of 2006 [2006] RD-KL 2735 (6 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA No. 2263 of 2006()

1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY
... Petitioner

2. THE CHIEF CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE

3. OFFICER I/C RECORDS,

Vs

1. K.P.MADHAVA MARAR (EX.SEP. NO.13821275),
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.THOMASMATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL,SR.PANEL

For Respondent :SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.R.UDAYABHANU

Dated :06/12/2006

O R D E R

K.A. ABDUL GAFOOR & K.R. UDAYABHANU, JJ

W.A. NO. 2263 OF 2006

Dated this the 6th day of December 2006



JUDGMENT

Abdul Gafoor, J

The first respondent - writ petitioner who filed the writ petition in the year 2001 claiming pension was granted benefit as per the impugned judgment dated 03.04.2006. During the pendency of the petition for 5 years the appellants/respondents totally neglected in their duty to file a counter affidavit. There was, therefore, an order by the learned single Judge on 16.03.2006 that the counter affidavit if any should be filed on or before 3.04.2006 and that in case no such counter affidavit was filed it would be treated as the appellant did not have any objection in allowing the prayers in the Writ Petition. This order was also passed after about 5 years of pendency of the writ petition, because that was the only way out for the court at that time, so that the respondent could be heard usefully. But this indulgence also fell on deaf ears. The learned single judge had, therefore, no option but to allow the prayers. The appeal is W.A. No. 2263 of 2006 2 against the judgment so rendered. Even then the appeal has been filed with delay which we have condoned. In that situation, we find no reason to interfere and the writ appeal is dismissed accordingly.

K.A. ABDUL GAFOOR, JUDGE

K.R. UDAYABHANU, JUDGE.

RV


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.