IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2011 / 1ST MAGHA 1932 WA.No. 124 of 2009 -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.6515/2007 Dated 25/02/2008 .................... APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT IN WPC: ------------------------------------------- THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING, DIRECTORATE OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING, MINISTRY OF LABOUR, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, SHRAM SAKTHI BHAVAN, RAFI MARG,NEW DELHI-110001. BY ADV. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 IN THE WPC: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. ULLAS U.P.,S/O.M.A.UNNI, CHIRIYIL VEEDU, VETTAMPALLI, ANAD VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING, THYCAUD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. INDUSTRIAL TRAINING DEPARTMENT, STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY OF INDUSTRIES GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R2 & R3 BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER, SMT. K. MEERA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.M. Appl. No.69 of 2009 and W.A.No. 124 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT J.Chelameswar, C.J. This is an appeal preferred by the 1st respondent in W.P.(C) No.6515 of 2007. The prayer in the writ petition was as follows: “Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing respondent No.1 to issue National Trade Certificate to the Petitioners within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.” 2. The writ petition was allowed by judgment dated 25.02.2008 directing the appellant herein to issue the certificates as prayed for. Challenging the correctness of the said decision the instant appeal is filed. Admittedly, the judgment under appeal has already been complied with by the appellant. It is also the stand of the appellant that after collecting the certificates pursuant to the judgment, the respondent/writ petitioner left India. Therefore, he could not C.M. Appl. No.69 of 2009 and WA No. 124 of 2009 -:2:- be served in the application seeking condonation of delay in preferring the instant appeal. 3. In such circumstances, obviously without hearing the respondent, neither the delay can be condoned nor the appeal can be considered. The learned counsel for the appellant, Smt.Vaheeda Babu, submitted that the correct address of the respondent/writ petitioner is not available with the appellant. In the circumstances the application to condone the delay is necessarily to be dismissed and consequently the appeal. Accordingly, they are dismissed. However, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there are other appeals wherein the issue identical to the issue raised in the present appeal are pending before this Court and the dismissal of the instant appeal may not be construed as a precedent on merits in the other appeals as and when they are taken up. The legal position is obvious as the instant appeal is not considered and disposed of on merits, the decision in this C.M. Appl. No.69 of 2009 and WA No. 124 of 2009 -:3:- appeal obviously cannot be a precedent binding on a Division Bench before which the other appeals are to be considered. J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice. P.R.Ramachandra Menon, Judge. ttb