AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 246 wordsC.S Dias, J
The writ petition is filed to direct the third respondent to consider and dispose of Exts P3 appeal, P4 delay petition and P5 stay petition expeditiously, and until such time to stay further proceedings pursuant to Ext P1 order.
The petitioner’s case is that Ext P1 order was passed by the first respondent on 9.7.2018. Challenging the said order, the petitioner has already preferred Exts P3 to P5 on 1.11.2022. Despite filing the above applications, the same has not been considered by the third respondent. The first respondent is now threatening to proceed with the implementation of Ext P1. Hence the writ petition.
Heard; Sri.Harisankar V Menon, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Thushara James, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
Having considered the fact that Exts P3 to P5 are pending consideration before the third respondent since 9.7.2018, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition in the following manner:
(i) The third respondent is directed to consider and dispose of Exts P4 delay petition and P5 stay petition in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.
(ii) Until such time orders are passed on Ext P5 stay petition, all further proceedings pursuant to Ext P1 shall be kept in abeyance.