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. 24378 of 2009(O) -------------------------- LAR.71/1988 of SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- JAYAKUMAR, S/O.SIVARAMAN PILLAI, AGED 31 YEARS, MALAYUDE THEKKETHIL, POOZHIKKAD MURI, THONNALLOOR VILLAGE, PANDALAM. BY ADV. SRI.PRATHEESH.P RESPONDENT(S): --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD 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. 24378 OF 2009 O ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 25th day of August, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner, a decree holder, under L.A. award, wants this court to issue a direction to the State to deposit the amounts before the execution court. The fact remains that the execution petition was filed on 7.6.2009 and this writ petition was instituted on 24.8.2009. It has also to be noted from paragraph 5 of the writ petition that the petitioner had filed an earlier execution petition and that was dismissed for non prosecution. The mere fact that the petitioner waited for ten years after the award of this court in the L.A. Appeal does not inspire confidence sufficient to issue a writ of mandamus to compel the State to deposit the funds. Even after ten years of the appellate decision, if the State has not deposited the amounts, that action would be only to the advantage of the claimant because interest and other incidentals on the compensation will accrue. At any rate, it will be unreasonable to issue a writ, when the matter is pending before a Sub Court, since no such writ could be issued, unless on the WPC.24378/09 : 2 : assumption that the judicial officer in that court is not doing his job expeditiously. On facts, I do not find any ground to take such a view. Hence, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner seeking indulgence of the court below to compel the State to make deposit or to further proceed with the execution petition, this writ petition is dismissed. (THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) aks