IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2008 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 13250 of 2008(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- SURENDRANATH, S/O. MADHAVAN AGED 65 YEARS, APSARALAYAM, AVALOOKUNNU P.O.,ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN SRI.GEORGE MATHEW SRI.SUNIL KUMAR A.G RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY LOCAL SELF DEPARTMENT, GOVT,.SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPALITY REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE SECRETARY, ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPALITY ALAPPUZHA. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.K.V.MANOJKUMAR SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHANDAS, SC, ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPALITY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.13250/08 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.T10-4230/2006 DT.1.2.2008. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF the REPLY DT.20.2.2008. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF the NOTICE NO.T10-4230/06 DT.21.2.2008. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF the ORDER DT.18.2.2008 IN CRO.MP NO.407/2008 OF SESSIONS COURT, ALAPPUZHA. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 13250 OF 2008 B ==================== Dated this the 17th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was the contractor of a dormitory owned by the respondent Municipality. On certain allegations, Ext.P1 notice of termination was issued by the 3rd respondent. Thereupon, he filed Ext.P2 reply and was called for a personal hearing by the Secretary. The writ petition was filed at that stage stating that though orders pursuant to Ext.P3 were not communicated, he was evicted. It is in this background petitioner prayed that he may be reinducted into the premises. 2. Standing counsel on instructions submit that pursuant to Ext.P3, petitioner was heard and an order of termination of the contract was also passed by the Secretary. It is stated that against the order of termination, petitioner had filed an appeal to the Municipal Council and that the Municipal Council by its resolution No.13 dated 5/4/2008 rejected the appeal. 3. As already noticed, the complaint in this writ petition was regarding non servicing of the order passed pursuant to Ext.P3 personal WPC 13250/08 :2 : hearing. Obviously the order was served, or else the petitioner could not have filed an appeal to the Council. Now that the appellate authority has also rejected the appeal by its resolution dated 5/4/2008, the course open to the petitioner is to pursue the statutory remedy of revision before the Tribunal. With that liberty, the writ petition is closed. ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE. Rp