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 TUESDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2008 / 22ND ASWINA 1930 W.A.No. 1932 of 2008 -------------- --------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 9812/2008 IN WPC.19149/2008 DATED 30/07/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------ THE CHINMAYA VIDYALAYA, LAYAM ROAD TRIPUNITHURA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SMT. USHA MOHAN. BY ADV. SRI.GOVIND K.BHARATHAN (SR.) SRI.C.P.KUNJHIKANNAN SRI.S.K.MADHU RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT NEW DELHI 110 001. 3. EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION RERPESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, PANCHDEEP BHAVAN CLG ROAD, NEW DELHI 110 002 4. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION REGIONAL OFFICE (KERALA) PANCHADWEEP BHAVAN ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR 680 020. R1 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA R2 BY ASST. SOLICITOR GENERAL SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR R3 & R4 BY STANDING COUNSEL SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/10/2008, ALONG WITH WA NO. 1933 OF 2008 & WA NO.2015 OF 2008 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. -------------------------------------------------------- W.A.Nos.1932, 1933 & 2015 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 14th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. Since common issues are involved in all these writ appeals, they are clubbed, heard and disposed of by this common order. (2) In all these writ appeals, the appellants are calling in question the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, declining to grant the interim relief sought for by them in the writ petitions. (3) In the writ petitions filed, the petitioners have called in question the notification issued by the State Government dated 8.10.2007 and also the notices issued by the E.S.I. Corporation, directing them to comply with the terms and conditions of the notification. The learned Judge while admitting the writ petitions has declined to grant the interim relief sought for by the petitioners. That is how the writ petitioners are before us in these writ appeals. (4) The notification issued by the State Government and the notices issued by the E.S.I. Corporation are the subject matter of the writ petitions. The learned Single Judge has not expressed any opinion on the legality or otherwise of the notification, nor has he said anything with W.A.No.1932 of 2008, etc. 2 regard to the correctness or otherwise of the notices issued by the E.S.I. Corporation. He has only admitted the writ petitions, but during the pendency of the writ petitions has declined to grant any interim relief. (5) In our opinion, the refusal to grant an interim order passed by the learned Single Judge is a discretionary order and unless it is demonstrated by the appellants that the refusal to grant the interim relief would cause irreparable loss and substantial injury, appellate court is not expected to interfere with the discretionary order passed by the learned Single Judge. (6). In our view, in matters of this nature, it would be appropriate for the petitioners to make a request before the learned Single Judge before whom the matters are pending for an out of turn hearing (7) In view of the above, while disposing of the writ appeals, we pass the following:- ORDER i) Writ appeals are disposed of. ii) The contesting respondents are directed to file their counter affidavits, if any, in the writ petitions within four weeks time from today. W.A.No.1932 of 2008, etc. 3 iii) Liberty is reserved to the appellants to make appropriate application before the learned Single Judge for out of turn hearing of the writ petitions. If and when such an application is made, we request the learned Single Judge to consider the same. iv) All the contentions of both the parties are left open. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE vns/dk