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 THURSDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2011 / 30TH ASHADHA 1933 WA.No. 787 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.27099/2009 Dated 24/05/2011 .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------------- ABDU S.SALAM, PERINGAMAPURATH, KODAVANGATTIL HOUSE, VALILLAPPUZHA P.O., KEEZHPARAMBU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY SRI.POOVAMULLE PARAMBIL ABDULKAREEM SRI.R.VINU RAJ RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER --------------------------------- 1. SAJEER K., KARATTIL HOUSE, NORTH KOZHAKOTTUR, ARCODE-673639, MALAPPURAM, KERALA. 2. THE HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., REGD. OFFICE 17, JAMSHEDJI TATA ROAD, MUMBAI-400020. 3. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER LPG (SZ), HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., THALAMUTHU NATARAJA BUILDING-1, GANDHI IRWIN ROAD, EGMORE, CHENNAI-600008. 4. THE SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER, HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., MANGALORE LPG REGIONAL OFFICE, VILLAGE BALA, KUTIPALLA, MANGALORE-575030. 5. AREECODE CO-OP. BANK LTD., ARECODE P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-673639, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 6. VINOD KUMAR, KUTTICKATTU HOUSE, PANDIKKAD P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676521. ADV. DR.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI.A.RAJASIMHAN FOR R1 SRI.M.CHANDRA BOSE FOR R1 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J. CHELAMESWAR, C.J & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.A.No. 787 of 2011 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT Ramachandra Menon, J. This appeal arises from the judgment dated 24.5.2011 in W.P(C).No. 27099 of 2009 preferred by the first respondent seeking for the following reliefs: “1. Issue a writ of mandamus, or any other writ, order or direction, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to recast Ext.P4 empanelled list by including the petitioner in the 2nd place in the list next to Sri.Vinod Kumar. 2. Issue a writ of mandamus, or any other writ, order or direction, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to appoint the petitioner as the LPG distributor for the Areecode Area when Sri.Vinod Kumar opts out of the list. 3. Issue a writ of certiorari, or any other writ, order or direction, quashing Ext.P7 proceedings as arbitrary and illegal. 4. Issue a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to be included as the 2nd candidate in the empanelled list next to Sri.Vinod Kumar being in the 1st place. 5. Issue such other writ, order or directions which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.” WA.787/11 2 2. The matter was contested by the parties concerned, particularly, the selected candidate, who was shown as the 6th respondent (appellant herein) and also by the Company. The case was that the 6th respondent, who was selected and enlisted for allotment of LPG leadership was not duly qualified by virtue of the norms specified and that the writ petitioner, who was rated as the 4th eligible candidate, ought to have been selected in place of 6th respondent in the Writ Petition. After considering the matter in detail, the Writ Petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge, which is the subject matter of challenge in this Appeal preferred by the 6th respondent in the Writ Petition. 3. When the matter is taken up for consideration, learned counsel Sri.M.Chandra Bose entered appearance on behalf of the first respondent/writ petitioner and submitted that the first respondent has obtained employment elsewhere; that he does not wish to contest the matter and further that the first respondent/writ petitioner might be permitted to withdraw the Writ Petition after setting aside the judgment. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for the first respondent and also the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent Company, this Court WA.787/11 3 finds that, in the particular facts and circumstances of the case, the first respondent/writ petitioner cannot continue to be the beneficiary of the judgment passed by this Court, by virtue of the employment secured by him as aforesaid and that the selection already made by the Company giving allotment to the 6th respondent in the writ petition need not be altered. Taking note of the submission made by the learned counsel for the first respondent, the impugned judgment is set aside and the writ petitioner is permitted to withdraw the Writ Petition. In view of the turn of events, the Writ Appeal is dismissed as not pressed. J.CHELAMESWAR, CHIEF JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE vgs