Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 6987

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Devan Ramachandran, M.B. SNEHALATHA, JJ
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAURAM-695001 – Appellant
Versus
SHANAVAS AGED 31 YEARS S/O.BHASHEER, SHANAVAS MANSIL, 43/51A, AYYAPPAN KAVU, KOCHI-682 018 – Respondent
WA NO. 729 OF 2019 | WP(C) NO.19611 OF 2015

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.RANJITH THAMPAN, SRI.K.P.JAYACHANDRAN
For the Respondents: SHRI.T.R.S.KUMAR, SHRI.P.A.AUGUSTINE(AREEKATTEL), SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI, SRI.RONY AUGUSTINE

The appeal was closed as the matter was pending before the Supreme Court, highlighting judicial efficiency and respect for superior court's jurisdiction.

Headnote:In the judgment delivered by the High Court of Kerala, it was determined that an appeal against the impugned judgment was already pending before the Supreme Court. The court found it unnecessary to consider the merits due to the pending Supreme Court ruling. Hence, the appeal was closed with liberty reserved for rehearing based on future decisions by the Supreme Court.

Table of Content
1. government pleader conceded the appeal's background and necessary judgment references. (Para 1)
2. pending supreme court decision renders further merit-based consideration unnecessary. (Para 2)
3. court's decision to close appeal with provision for future rehearing. (Para 3)

Devan Ramachandran, J.

It is conceded before us today by Sri.Jaffar Khan –

learned Senior Government Pleader, that the impugned judgment was taken in appeal by the Requisitioning Authority, leading to a judgment - a copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure I. He added that, against Annexure I, the said Authority has moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court, to obtain a stay - a copy of which is produced as Annexure II.

2. It is thus obvious that the impugned judgment is already under challenge by the Requisitioning Authority. A separate appeal by the State of Kerala perhaps was not necessary; but we do not propose to speak on it affirmatively.

3. As matters now stand, this matter is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and we do not think that it is necessary for us to consider this matter on its merits, particularly when the judgment to be delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court will govern all parties, including the Government of Kerala.

In the afore circumstances, this appeal is closed;

however, reserving liberty to the appellants to seek a rehearing, depending upon the decision to be taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in future, if it is found necessary.

Sd/

Click Here to Read the rest of this document