Division Bench allowed a writ appeal against an interlocutory order, making the interim order absolute and restoring the earlier single Judge order to facilitate final hearing of the main petition.
Interim order dated 05.08.2014 made absolute; Single Judge order dated 29.05.2014 restored.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN &
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014/28TH SRAVANA, 1936
WA.No. 1054 of 2014 () IN WP(C).13604/2014
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN I.A.NO.9957 OF 2014 IN WP(C) 13604/2014 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 24-07-2014
APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:
AKASH.A KAILATHUPURAYIDATHIL, PERUMBAIKKAD P.O. KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS :
1. THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA P.O. KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR PIN-686 562.
2. THE SYNDICATE OF THE MAHATMA GANDHI UNIVERSITY, PRIYADARSHINI HILLS, ATHIRAMPUZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 562, REPRESENTED BY ITS VICE CHANCELLOR,.
*** ADDL.R3. D.BIMALJITH, PARIPPALLY KIZHAKKEVEEDU, TOWN LIMIT, KADAPPAKADA.P.O.,KOLLAM.**
*ADDL. R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 05/08/2014 IN IA 707/2014.
R1-R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.JACOB VARGHESE (SR.) R1-R2 BY ADV. SRI.VARUGHESE M.EASO, SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY R1-R2 BY ADV. SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J.,
SC, M.G.UNIVERSITY ADDL.R3 BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.) ADDL.R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD ADDL.R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) ADDL.R3 BY ADV. SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR ADDL.R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.VIBHEESHANAN ADDL.R3 BY ADV. SRI.SIDDHARTH KRISHNAN
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-08-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JJ.
W.A.No.1054 of 2014
Dated this the 19th day of August, 2014.
J U D G M E N T
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.
This appeal by the writ petitioner is against an interlocutory order issued by the learned single Judge on 24.07.2014 modifying an earlier interlocutory order. At the stage of admission, a Division
Bench of this Court had granted on 05.08.2014 an interim order as prayed for in the writ appeal for a period of three weeks. Today, when the matter is taken up, the learned senior counsel appearing for the University expressed an anxiety that the writ petition pending before the learned single Judge is connected with other writ petitions and that all those matters are required to be emergently considered. He says that the matter was listed before the learned single Judge even today. He also expressed an anxiety as to whether it would be appropriate for the learned single Judge to hear and decide the writ petition during the pendency of this writ appeal. We think that there cannot be any apprehension in that regard because pendency of a writ appeal against an interlocutory order
WA 1054/14
-2-
need not by itself deter the learned single Judge from deciding the main matter pending in writ petition, unless there is interdicting order by the Division Bench.
Be that as it may, if the writ petition is ripe for hearing, obviously, the learned single Judge can expedite final hearing of that writ petition. To facilitate such process, it is agreed by all sides that ends of justice would be satisfied if the interlocutory order granted by the Division Bench on 05.08.2014 is made absolute and the writ appeal is ordered preserving the contentions of all parties in the writ petition from which this writ appeal arises. We do so. This writ appeal is, therefore, allowed restoring the order dated 29.05.2014 issued by the learned single Judge in WP(C) No.13604 of 2014.
(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE)
(P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE)
jg
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the pendency of a writ appeal precludes the lower court from hearing the main writ petition.
Akash.A Kailathupurayidathil
The Mahatma Gandhi University
The Syndicate of the Mahatma Gandhi University
D.Bimaljith
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan
P.B.Suresh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
