IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 29175 of 2011(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- VASU KOTTOR, MALEPPURAKKAL HOUSE, P.O.CHOVANNOOR, BLOCK ROAD, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695001 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, KERALA CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695001 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR-680609 4. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICE, THRISSUR PIN-680609 5. THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER THALAPPILLY TALUK, WADAKKANCHERRY, THRISSUR - 680609 6. J.PAUL PERICHERY, PERICHERY HOUSE, FINE ARTS AVENUE KOCHI-16 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED SHAH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.29175/11 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- TRUE COPY OF ORDER DTD 19/11/2005 EXT.P2:- TRUE COPY OF APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT DTD 11/12/2005 EXT.P3:- TRUE COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD 11/4/2007 EXT.P4:- TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN WPC NO.20118/2011 DTD 25/7/2011 EXT.P5:- TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINTS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DTD.10/10/2011 EXT.P6:- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINTS SUBMITTED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD 10/10/2011 EXT.P7:- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINTS SUBMITTED TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT DTD 10/10/2011 //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 29175 OF 2011 ===================== Dated this the 9th day of November, 2011 J U D G M E N T AWD No.3 of Thalappalli Taluk in Thrissur District was awarded to one Sri.Jose Paul Perichery. While he was conducting the AWD, proceedings were initiated against him on the allegation of various irregularities. Such proceedings were finalised by Ext.P1 order dated 19/11/2005 whereby the 3rd respondent terminated the licence. 2. During the pendency of the proceedings, licencee expired and his legal representatives participated in the proceedings. Against Ext.P1 order, one of the legal representatives of the deceased filed Ext.P2 appeal. The appeal was considered by the 2nd respondent, who by Ext.P3 order dated 11/4/2007 remanded the matter for fresh consideration. 3. Though Ext.P3 order was issued as early as on 11/4/2007, proceedings were not finalised. Complaining of the above, 6th respondent, a legal representative of the deceased licencee, approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.20118/11. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P4 judgment directing the 3rd WPC No. 29175/11 :2 : respondent to finalise the proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3 order of the 2nd respondent. 4. In the meanwhile, petitioner a total stranger filed Exts.P5, P6 and P7 complaints to the 2nd, 3rd and 5th respondent respectively stating that the 6th respondent is ineligible for grant of licence as a legal representative of the deceased. That objection has not been considered and it is complaining of the above, this writ petition has been filed seeking consideration of Ext.P6 and to require the respondents to issue a fresh notification for appointment of ARD No.3 of Thalappalli Taluk reserving the same to scheduled caste candidate. 5. By Ext.P3 order of the 2nd respondent, proceedings now stand remitted to the 3rd respondent. By Ext.P4 judgment of this Court, this Court also directed the 3rd respondent to finalise the proceedings in pursuance to Ext.P3. The instructions of the leaned Government Pleader are to the effect that the proceedings now stand posted for hearing on 16/11/2011. It is while so, this writ petition is coming up for orders. 6. Although the petitioner has several contentions regarding the legality of Ext.P3 order passed by the 2nd WPC No. 29175/11 :3 : respondent, in the absence of any challenge to the said order, this Court is not called upon to examine the validity of the order. 7. So long as Ext.P3 order remains in force and in view of Ext.P4 judgment of this Court, 3rd respondent is bound to finalise the proceedings pursuant to Ext.P3. While so finalising the proceedings, if the decision is likely to be in favour of the 6th respondent, necessarily, his eligibility is also a matter to be considered by the 3rd respondent. In such proceedings, at this stage, I am not inclined to direct that the petitioner should have a part to play. 8. Therefore, I direct the 3rd respondent to finalise the proceedings pursuant to Exts.P3 and P4 duly adverting to the eligibility of the 6th respondent as well. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp