K.A. Anilkumar vs The Director Of Municipal … on 25 May, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA.No. 1055 of 2009()


1. K.A. ANILKUMAR
                      ...  Petitioner
2. P.BABU,
3. M.K.RAMESH,

                        Vs



1. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE THRISSUR CORPORATION ELECTRICITY

3. THE THRISSUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,

4. T.BABU, OVERSEER

5. K.BALAMURALI, OVERSEER

6. C.RAMACHANDRAN, OVERSEER

                For Petitioner  :SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR

 Dated :25/05/2009

 O R D E R
                         K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR &

                             C.T.RAVIKUMAR,JJ.

                      -----------------------------------------

                           W.A. NO.1055 OF 2009

                      -----------------------------------------

                             Dated 25th May, 2009.

                                  JUDGMENT

Balakrishnan Nair, J.

The appellants are respondents 4 to 6 in the Writ Petition. This

appeal is filed by them, feeling aggrieved by the interim order passed by the

learned Single Judge on 7.4.2009. The operative portion of the said order

reads as follows:

“3. Pending further orders in the matter, it is clarified
that the interim order passed in this case will not stand in the
way of the 3rd respondent granting appropriate promotion to the
6th respondent. The interim order granted will continue for
another two months subject to the modification shown above.”

2. Going by the above order, we notice that no appeal will lie against

it, in view of the principles laid down by the larger Bench of this Court in

K.S.Das v. State of Kerala [1992(2) K.L.T. 358(FB)]. The interim order

will remain in force only up to 6.6.2009. The learned Judge has also noticed

the possibility of passing further orders in the matter. If the appellants are

aggrieved by the interim order granted, they can bring it to the notice of the

WA 1055/2009 2

learned Single Judge, when the matter comes up for further extension of that

order. In view of the above position, it is unnecessary to entertain this

appeal. Further, going by the nature of the order impugned, no appeal will

lie against it. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed without prejudice

to the contentions of the appellants and their right to move the learned

Single Judge for appropriate orders.

K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE.

C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE.

nm/