Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 26021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, BASANT BALAJI, JJ
THE IVERKALA MILK PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.Q-119(D), APCOS, IVERKALA NADUVIL, IVERKALA EAST P.O., KOLLAM , REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY – Appellant
Versus
ASHISH V.G. – Respondent
WA NO. 862 OF 2026|WP(C) NO.5893 OF 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.N.ANAND, SHRI.RAJESH O.N., SHRI.AMEER SALIM, SHRI.SADIQ NAZAR
For the Respondents: SRI.B.MOHANLAL, SRI.SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE – G.P.

Appellate court refrains from interfering in extended interim orders when IA under Article 226(3) is pending before Single Judge.

Headnote:The writ petition challenges an interim order issued by the Single Judge, extended multiple times under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India. Essential facts involve appellants as 5th and 6th respondents seeking vacation of the interim relief. The court finds it improper to intervene in ongoing interim proceedings where an application under Article 226(3) is pending. Issues framed center on propriety of appellate interference in extended interim orders. The ratio decidendi holds that appellants must pursue statutory remedies before the Single Judge rather than seeking appellate intervention prematurely. Appeal disposed of with liberty to seek urgent hearing before Single Judge.

Table of Content
1. declines intervention in ongoing interim matter (Para 2)
2. grants liberty for urgent single judge hearing (Para 3)

The impugned interim order was issued by the learned Single Judge on 16.02.2026 for a period of one month; subsequently to be extended for a period of two weeks on 16.03.2026 and by a further period of three months on 23.03.2026. We are told that the appellants have moved I.A.No.1/2026 before the learned Single Judge, invoking Article 226(3) of theConstitution of India.

2. Obviously, therefore, it would not be proper for us to intervene at this stage against an interim order which has been extended at least twice. It is for the appellants to pursue the above mentioned interim application filed, or to seek any other benefits as would be entitled to them under the statutory scheme.

3. Since the aforesaid I.A. is still stated to be pending, we leave liberty to the appellant to move the learned Single Judge appropriately for an urgent and early hearing.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document