IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2008 / 1ST SRAVANA 1930 WA.No. 561 of 2004(B) --------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.3105/2000 Dated 28/01/2000 .................... APPELLANT: RESPONDENT IN THE O.P: -------------------------------------------------------- THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA. RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS IN THE O.P: ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. KUMARI, D/O.NARAYANAN ACHUTHAN, KAROTTUPARAMBIL, VIRINJAMPARA, MANKULAM VILLAGE, IDUKKI. 2. SULOCHANA, D/O.NARAYANAN ACHUTHAN, KAROTTUPARAMBIL, VIRINJAMPARA, MANKULAM VILLAGE, IDUKKI. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ----------------------------------------------------- W.A.No.561 of 2004 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 23rd day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. Adv.Sri.K.Jaju Babu takes notice for the 2nd respondent. Service is complete. 2. This writ appeal is directed against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in O.P.No.3105 of 2000 dated 28-1-2000. 3. The learned Single Judge while disposing of the original petition has stated as under: “In the circumstances of the case, I direct the respondent to dispose of Exts.P1 and P2 applications expeditiously, in any event, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Respondent should also fix the seignorage rate in accordance with the directions of this Court in Ext.P3 judgment if the petitions are allowed.” 4. In the original petition filed, the petitioners had requested this Court to direct the respondent to consider Exts.P1 and P2 representations/applications filed by them in accordance with law. The learned Single Judge has granted that relief; however has added that those representations/applications requires to be considered in the light W.A.No.561/2004 -2- of Ext.P3 judgment produced by the petitioners. 5. The State is aggrieved by the aforesaid orders passed by the learned Single Judge. They have raised an issue as to whether Ext.P3 judgment can be applied to the facts and circumstances of the case that is pleaded by the petitioners in the original petition. That is the moot question and that requires to be considered in appropriate proceedings. However, the respondent in the original petition has already implemented the orders and directions issued by this Court and at this stage it may not be appropriate for this Court to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Single Judge. 6. Therefore, keeping open the legal issues raised by the appellant in this writ appeal to be agitated in appropriate proceedings, we dispose of the writ appeal as having become infructuous. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE MS