IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2009 / 3RD BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 24268 of 2009(C) -------------------------- LAR.28/2006 of III ADDL.SUB COURT, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- MANOHARAN, S/O.GOPALAN NAIR, ARATHI BHAVAN KARIKKAL, KARIMBINPUZHA, PUTHOOR, KOLLAM REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER G.MADHAVAN NAIR, S/O.GOPALAN NAIR, KOTTOOR, PADINJATTETHIL, KARIKKAL, PUTHOOR, KOLLAM BY ADV. SRI.T.B.THANKAPPAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERNAKULAM, COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM 2..KERALA INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH, SC FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P(C) No. 24268 OF 2009 C ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 25th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Adv.Sri.G.S.Reghunath on behalf of the 2nd respondent and learned Government Pleader. 2. Petitioner is the claimant in L.A.R.28/06 of the Sub Court, Ernakulam. The reference court passed award in that case. It is stated that there was an appeal against that award. The requisitioning authority was also in the High Court. The Government's appeal L.A.1790/07 was dismissed by this court as per Ext.P2 judgment on 17.7.2008. 3. Though an earlier E.P. as E.P.No.382/07 stood dismissed, as stated by the petitioner, for non prosecution, he filed E.P.494/08, after this court dismissed the L.A. Appeal. The dismissal of that appeal was also stated in E.P.494/08. It is stated that the copy of the judgment of this court was also produced WPC.24268/09 : 2 : before the court below. However, the court below has issued Ext.P4 dismissing the cheque application to the extent of 50% of the amount in deposit on the ground that the order of stay regulates the deposit and confines the direction to release only 50%. That state of affairs has changed. May be that the cheque application was filed in E.P.382/07 and not in E.P.494/08. But the matters are crystal clear. The impugned Ext.P4 to the extent it is against the petitioner is quashed and it is directed that on a fresh cheque application to be filed in E.P.494/08, the court below will take up this matter most expeditiously and issue orders in the light of what is stated above and in accordance with law. To enable this process, the parties are directed to appear before the court below at the next date of hearing. This writ petition is ordered accordingly. (THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) aks