IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2010 / 26TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 24900 of 2010(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- D.MADHU,AGED 54 YEARS,S/O.V.DEMIANOSE, SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE(NON I.P.S) AND ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,KERALA POLICE ACADEMY, RAMAVARMAPURAM,THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,KERALA. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU T.K. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 24900 OF 2010 (J) ===================== Dated this the 17th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was a Superintendent of Police (Non IPS) now under suspension. 2. In this writ petition, what he seeks is a direction for the consideration of Exts.P3 and P6 representations. 3. In so far as Ext.P3 is concerned, it relates to Ext.P1, the annual confidential report for the year 2003, which contained certain adverse remarks against the petitioner, which were also accepted by the reviewing authority. When the adverse remarks were communicated to the petitioner in 2004, he represented against the adverse remarks resulting in Ext.P2 order dated 27/1/2006 issued by the 1st respondent. Petitioner states that aggrieved by that part of Ext.P2, in so far as the reviewing authorities remarks were not expunged, petitioner filed Ext.P3 representation dated 28/3/2008 to the 1st respondent. Orders were not passed on the said representation. That is one of the complaints. 4. Yet another complaint raised by the petitioner is that, WPC No. 24900/10 :2 : by Exts.P4 and P5, he was informed that the Additional Director General of Police rated him average for the assessment year 2006-07. It is stated that aggrieved by the said rating, he submitted Ext.P6 representation, which according to the petitioner, is now pending before the 2nd respondent. Orders were not passed on Ext.P6 either. This is the second grievance that the petitioner has. 5. In so far as Ext.P3 representation is concerned, that representation dated 28/3/2008, is in relation to the assessment year 2003-04. His representation against the adverse remark including that of the reviewing authority was rejected by Ext.P2 order dated 27/1/2006 and Ext.P3 representation was made more than two years thereafter. In my view, that representation is highly belated, and this Court will not be justified in now directing its consideration. 6. However, Ext.P6 dated 6/9/08 is filed immediately on receipt of Exts.P4 and P5 conveying the assessment by the Additional Director General of Police. Since according to the petitioner, this representation is pending consideration of the 2nd respondent, I direct the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P6 WPC No. 24900/10 :3 : representation and pass orders thereon. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp