SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 6498

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. NATARAJAN, JOHNSON JOHN, JJ
K. RAJAGOPALAN – Appellant
Versus
DIRECTORATE OF AIR VETERANS – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 37303 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.VIVEK MENON, SHRI.RANCE R.
For the Respondents: O.M.SHALINA, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

The court mandates timely implementation of tribunal directives, emphasizing adherence to procedural timelines in veterans' applications.

Headnote:(1) Statute Analysis: This judgment pertains to the directives of the Armed Forces Tribunal regarding timely responses for veterans' applications. Facts: The petitioners sought a direction for implementation of an order requiring the consideration of their application within a stipulated time.

Findings of Court:
The court observed delays in response from the respondents despite explicit tribunal direction. (2)

Issues: The court frames the issue of whether the respondents are legally obliged to implement the tribunal's directions.

Ratio Decidendi: The rationale emphasized was the necessity for adherence to tribunal orders without undue delays. (3)

Result: The court directed the 1st respondent to dispose of Ext.P3 application within four weeks.

Table of Content
1. filing of writ petition and preliminary facts. (Para 1 , 2)
2. submission under consideration by the authority. (Para 3 , 4)
3. court's observation on delay in response. (Para 5 , 6)
4. court's directive for timely disposal of application. (Para 7)

K. NATARAJAN, J.

This writ petition is filed for issuing direction to the

1st respondent to implement Ext.P4 order dated 03.01.2025 passed by the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kochi (hereinafter refered to as “Tribunal”) in a time bound manner.

2. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned DSGI appearing for the respondents.

3. The learned DSGI submits that Ext.P3 application submitted by the 1st petitioner is under consideration.

4. The order under Ext.P4 at para 6 reads as follows:-

“6. Therefore, the 1st respondent is directed to consider and dispose Annexure A-8 application submitted by the 1st applicant in accordance with the rules on the subject, at the earliest, any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order”.

5. The Tribunal directed the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of the application filed by the 1st petitioner herein within two months from the date of receipt of copy of Ext.P4 order.

6. Now, it is almost one year lapsed and the respondents counsel submits that it is still under consideration. When there was a direction issued by the tribunal for considering the application if it is come within the purview of the Rules and Regulations, the respondents have to dispose of the application of the applicants/petitioners herein. They cannot keep the application pending for almost more than 10 months after lapse of the time granted by the tribunal.

7. Therefore, the petitioners made out a ground for issuing direction to the 1st respondent.

Accordingly, we disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent to dispose of Ext.P3 application (Annexure A8 in O.A.No.288/2024) within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top