IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2011 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 8590 of 2011(W) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- TRANSPORT DEMOCRATIC FEDERATION (TDF), ATTINGAL UNIT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, S.RETNAKUMAR, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.LATE SREEDHARAN, SURENDRAVILASAM, VALIYAKUNNU, ATTINGAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695001. 2. THE STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP. BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN 695001. 3. THE ELECTION COMMISSION REP. BY THE CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER, ELECTION DEPARTMENT, KERALA LEGISLATURE COMPLEX, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695033. R2 BY ADV.SHRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR, SC R3 BY ADV.SHRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC, ELE.COMMN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) No.8590 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T This writ petition has been filed by Attingal Unit of Transport Democratic Federation, challenging Exhibit P1. In short, the contention of the petitioner is that in the light of Exhibit P3 order passed by the third respondent, Exhibit P1 order of transfer should not have been issued. In terms of Exhibit P3, second respondent was ordered to maintain status quo by the 3rd respondent, in the matter of transfer. 2. A statement has been filed in this writ petition on behalf of the third respondent. It is stated therein that, on receipt of Exhibit P1 order, the petitioner organization registered a complaint before the 3rd respondent calling for intervention. Thereupon, the 3rd respondent called for a report from the second respondent and thereafter, passed Exhibit P3 order on 01.3.2011. However, in paragraph (3) of the statement, it is stated thus:- “Based on the report from the Managing Director, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation this Respondent has now informed the 2nd Respondent that this Respondent has no objection in implementing Exhibit P1 transfer and posting order. The photocopy of the letter dated 24-03-2011 issued by the 3rd Respondent to the 2nd Respondent is produced herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-A.” W.P.(C) No. 8590 of 2011 -2- 3. It is thus obvious that, now, the third respondent has no objection in implementation of the transfer and postings ordered as per Exhibit P1. In view of the said position obtained in this case, it will be open to the second respondent to pass orders to implement the transfer and postings effected as per Exhibit P1 and aggrieved parties may, then resort to appropriate remedies available to redress the grievance. Subject to the said observation, this writ petition is closed. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE KRK W.P.(C) No. 8590 of 2011 -3-