C C MATHEW Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition was posted along with the representations received from the 6th and 8th respondents that the provisions of the Indian Soldiers' Litigation Act, 1925 may be taken into account and proceedings in this writ petition may be kept in abeyance. I considered these representations before arguments were heard on this writ petition.

(2.) S.6 of the Indian Soldiers' Litigation Act in so far as it is material, reads as follows:

(3.) The interests of respondents 2 to 8 in this writ petition are identical as would appear from the discussion following hereinafter. The 8th respondent is represented before me by an Advocate and being so, is not entitled under Clause.1 of S.6, to have the proceedings suspended. The interests of the 6th respondent fas indeed of respondents 2 to 5 and 7), are, in my opinion, identical with those of the 8th respondent, and are adequately represented by him. I therefore refrain from suspending the proceedings under the proviso to S.6 of the Act, and proceed to consider the matter on the merits.