IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2009 / 26TH ASHADHA 1931 W.A.No.1501 of 2009() AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.30332/2000 Dated 12/03/2009 APPELLANT: PETITIONER IN THE OP ANAND SANKAR UPADYAY, DEPUTY DIRECTOR (AQUACULTURE), M.P.E.D.A., SUB REGIONAL CENTRE, (AQUACULTURE), P-161/1 (3RD FLOOR), V.I.P.ROAD, ULTADANGA, CULCUTTA -700054 BY ADV. SRI.T.I.DANIEL RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS IN THE O.P. 1. THE MARINE PRODUCTS EXPORT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (M.P.E.D.A.)(MINISTRY OF COMMERCE, GOVT. OF INDIA) M.P.E.D.A HOUSE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN-36, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE DIRECTOR, M.P.E.D.A HEAD OFFICE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN-36. BY SRI. E.K.NANDAKUMAR, STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------------------------- W.A. NO. 1501 OF 2009 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner is the appellant. He was an officer under the first respondent. He applied for study leave. As per the rules governing grant of leave, if study leave is granted, the incumbent will be eligible for salary during the leave period. The request of the petitioner for study leave was to complete his Ph.D course. But, the said request was rejected by the competent authority of the first respondent as per Ext.P6 dated 23.2.1995 and the petitioner was directed to apply for other eligible leave to his credit, other than study leave. The petitioner availed of leave other than study leave, completed his course and for the first time, he protested against non grant of study leave by filing Ext.P8 representation dated 17.9.1998, requesting to treat his leave period as study leave. The said representation was rejected by the competent authority by Ext.P9 dated 9.10.1998. The petitioner filed a further representation, Ext.P10, on 28.10.1999. The same was also rejected by Ext.P11 dated 9.8.2000. Feeling aggrieved by those decisions of the competent authority, this Writ Petition was filed, challenging Exts.P9 and P11 and also seeking further W.A. NO. 1501/2009 2 appropriate directions. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition for the reason that the petitioner had never chosen to challenge Ext.P6. It was also noticed that against Ext.P6 issued on 23.2.1995, the petitioner demurred for the first time only in September, 1998. It was, therefore, held that the petitioner was guilty of delay, laches and acquiescence and based on that, the Writ Petition was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, this Writ Appeal is filed. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant. We find no reason to take a different view. We notice that the application for study leave was rejected as per Ext.P6 in 1995. The appellant chose to represent against the same only in 1998. So, he is guilty of delay, laches and acquiescence. The finding of the learned Single Judge is absolutely correct. We agree with the reasons and conclusion of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. (K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR) JUDGE (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE sp/ W.A. NO. 1501/2009 3 K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. W.A. NO.1501/2009 JUDGMENT 17th July, 2009 W.A. NO. 1501/2009 4