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
18 paragraphs · 360 words[1] When the matters are taken up today, I heard Mr. T. Rajendra, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 304 of 2012 and WP(C) No. 471
of 2012 and Mr. KH. Tarunkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 757 of 2015. I also heard Mr. S. Suresh, learned ASG for the
respondent No.1 and Mr. M. Devananda, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
[2] Originally, Mr. M. Devananda, learned counsel appeared for the respondent Nos. 5 to 7 who are all private respondents and later on, on his
appointment as counsel for the RIMS, he has withdrawn his appearance for the respondent No. 5 to 7 and entered appearance for the respondent
No.2.
[3] Mr. T. Rajendra, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 304 of 2012 and WP(C) No. 471 of 2012 represented that respondent No.2 has
already filed counter affidavit and on the last occasion, he seeks time to file rejoinder but due to Covid-19 pandemic, he could not filed rejoinder to the
counter affidavit filed by the respondent. Therefore, he seeks time finally for filing rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.2 in
both the writ petitions.
[4] Mr.Kh. Tarunkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No.757 of 2015 seeks time to file rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed by the
respondent No.2.
[5] Unfortunately, the WP(C) No.304 of 2012 and WP(C) No. 471 of 2012 are pending from 2012 onwards almost 8(eight) years and the WP(C)
No.757 of 2015 is pending for almost 5(five) years but both the learned counsels for petitioner in these petitions represented that since the respondent
No.2 have filed counter affidavit recently, therefore, they seek time final chance to file rejoinder to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.2.
 [6] Therefore, post these matters finally on 18.2.2021 and both the counsels are directed to advance their arguments on that day without fail since
the matters are pending from 2012 and 2015 onwards and no further adjournment will be granted on that day under any circumstances.
[7] Registry is directed to issue copy of this order to both parties through their whatsapp/e-mail.