The Director General Of … vs Ullas Up. on 21 January, 2011

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA.No. 124 of 2009()


1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF EMPLOYMENT AND
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. ULLAS UP.,S/O.M.A.UNNI, CHIRIYIL VEEDU,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DIRECTOR OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING,

3. INDUSTRICAL TRAINING DEPARTMENT, STATE

                For Petitioner  :SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.J.CHELAMESWAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

 Dated :21/01/2011

 O R D E R
    J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J.
           - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
                      C.M. Appl. No.69 of 2009
                                    and
                        W.A.No. 124 OF 2009
           - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
             Dated this the 21st day of January, 2011

                              JUDGMENT

J.Chelameswar, C.J.

This is an appeal preferred by the 1st respondent in

W.P.(C) No.6515 of 2007. The prayer in the writ petition was

as follows:

“Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ,

order or direction directing respondent No.1 to issue National

Trade Certificate to the Petitioners within a time frame to be

fixed by this Hon’ble Court.”

2. The writ petition was allowed by judgment dated

25.02.2008 directing the appellant herein to issue the

certificates as prayed for. Challenging the correctness of the

said decision the instant appeal is filed. Admittedly, the

judgment under appeal has already been complied with by the

appellant. It is also the stand of the appellant that after

collecting the certificates pursuant to the judgment, the

respondent/writ petitioner left India. Therefore, he could not

C.M. Appl. No.69 of 2009
and WA No. 124 of 2009
-:2:-

be served in the application seeking condonation of delay in

preferring the instant appeal.

3. In such circumstances, obviously without hearing

the respondent, neither the delay can be condoned nor the

appeal can be considered. The learned counsel for the

appellant, Smt.Vaheeda Babu, submitted that the correct

address of the respondent/writ petitioner is not available with

the appellant. In the circumstances the application to condone

the delay is necessarily to be dismissed and consequently the

appeal. Accordingly, they are dismissed. However, the

learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there are

other appeals wherein the issue identical to the issue raised in

the present appeal are pending before this Court and the

dismissal of the instant appeal may not be construed as a

precedent on merits in the other appeals as and when they are

taken up.

The legal position is obvious as the instant appeal is

not considered and disposed of on merits, the decision in this

C.M. Appl. No.69 of 2009
and WA No. 124 of 2009
-:3:-

appeal obviously cannot be a precedent binding on a Division

Bench before which the other appeals are to be considered.

J.Chelameswar,
Chief Justice.

P.R.Ramachandra Menon,
Judge.

ttb