V.Balakrishnan vs State Of Kerala on 21 May, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP.No. 16105 of 1998(P)



1. V.BALAKRISHNAN
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.P.SUDHAKARA PRASAD (SR.)

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN

 Dated :21/05/2009

 O R D E R
                         P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
                 -----------------------------
                      O.P No. 16105 of 1998-P
                ------------------------------
               Dated this the 21st day of May, 2009.

                          J U D G M E N T

This original petition was presented on 21.8.1998,

claiming seniority over the third respondent and promotion to

higher posts earlier than the third respondent. The original petition

was admitted and notice ordered to the respondents on 24.8.1998.

However the petitioner has not taken steps to serve notice on the

respondents. Though the petitioner had taken steps to implead the

third respondent in a representative capacity and had filed

C.M.P.No.28656 of 1998 for taking out notice of the original

petition by advertisement in a news paper daily, the petitioner did

not take steps on that application also. Therefore, when this

Original Petition came up for hearing on 19.9.2007, the learned

Single Judge passed the following order:

notice”This been sent for want of process being filed. With
matter was admitted on 24.8.1998, however, no
has
the passage of time, it may not be appropriate to require
the respondents to contest the writ petition as it was filed
in August, 1998, even if this writ petition is to be further
proceeded with. Under such circumstances, learned
counsel for the petitioner seeks two weeks time to seek
instructions from the petitioner. If the petitioner intends to

O.P No. 16105 of 1998-P 2

prosecute the writ petition on the basis of what is
aforesaid, he shall cure the defects within such time.”

2. However, till date, the petitioner has not taken any step

to cure the defects. More than ten years have passed after the

Original Petition was filed. In my opinion, as rightly noticed by the

learned Single Judge, who passed the order dated 19.9.2007, it

would not be just or equitable to call upon the third respondent to

defend the writ petition at this distance of time. I am therefore

constrained to dismiss this Original Petition for non prosecution.

Ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

P.N.RAVINDRAN
JUDGE

//True Copy//

PA to Judge
ab

O.P No. 16105 of 1998-P 3