IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 29TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 3616 of 2010(B) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- A.RAJENDRA PANICKER, GENERAL MANAGER (CONSTRUCTION), INCHARGE OF MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, HEAD OFFICE, P.B. NO.1727, WARE HOUSING CORPORATION ROAD, KOCHI. BY ADVS. MR.R.NARENDRAN NAIR, MR.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. KERALA LOK AYUKTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. M.VENUGOPALAN ASSARI, PRESIDENT, KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, EMPLOYEES' UNION (CITU) SABHAPATHY COIL STREET, CHALAI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, AGRL(PU) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. C.K.KRISHNANKUTTY, CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, HEAD OFFICE, P.B.NO.1727, WAREHOUSING CORPORATION ROAD, KOCHI. W.P.(C). NO.3616/2010-B: 5. LT.CO.(RTD.) K.G.RAMACHANDRAN, FORMER MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, HEAD OFFICE, P.B.NO.1727, WEREHOUSING CORPORATION ROAD, KOCHI. R1 & R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. V. MANU, R2 BY ADVS. MR.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY, SMT.N.SANTHA, MR.S.A.ANAND, MR.PETER JOSE CHRISTO, MR.RAMESH. C.R. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/02/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.3616/2010-B: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE G.O.(RT).NO.2064/09/AD DTD. 11/12/2009 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT NO.1589/2009 FILED BY THE R.2. BEFORE THE R.1. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE I.A. NO. 695/2009 FILED IN COMPLAINT NO.1589/2009 BEFORE THE R.1. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DTD. 22/12/2009 IN I.A. NO. 695/2009 IN COMPLAINT NO.1589/2009. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN I.A. NO.695/2009. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 29/01/2010 ISSUED BY THE R.1. IN I.A. NO. 695/2009 IN COMPLAINT NO.1589/2009. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE NOTE DTD. 28/01/2010 SENT BY THE PETITIONER IN THIS REGARD. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 29/01/2010 DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO ATTEND THE MEETING AT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 27/01/2010 ISSUED BY THE ALATHUR CO- OPERATIVE MARKETING SOCIETY LTD. EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 30/01/2010 ISSUED BY THE REGIONAL MANAGER OF THE CORPORATION TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 24/01/2010 SISUED BY THE CONSUMERFED. EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 27/01/2010 ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION OF INDIA LTD. (NAFED). EXT.P.13: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 27/01/2010 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.3616 OF 2010 (B) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T Heard. Counsel entered appearance for R2. Notice to R1,R3,R4 and R5 dispensed with. 2. Challenge in the writ petition is against Exts.P4 and P6 orders passed by the Ist respondent. 3. Ext.P4 is an order passed by the first respondent in I.A.No.695/2009 in complaint No.1589/2009 restraining the petitioner herein from taking administrative decision including on policy matters in the Kerala State Warehousing Corporation where he has been appointed as Managing Director in charge. Subsequently seeking to have the said order vacated, petitioner filed an application along with his counter. Matter was heard and Lok Ayukta passed Ext.P6 order declining to vacate the interim order but however clarifying the same, that it will be open to the first respondent to take decisions, depending upon the exigencies and on important situations and with the permission of the Ist WPC.No. 3616/2010 :2 : respondent. 4. I heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent, the complainant before the Lok Ayukta. 5. Although the petitioner canvassed for the invalidity of the aforesaid orders and counsel for the 2nd respondent canvased to sustain the same, having regard to the fact that an order in the nature of Exts.P4 and P6 if allowed to operate will have the effect of virtually stalling every activity in the Kerala State Warehousing Corporation and the functioning of the petitioner as its Managing Director in charge and such orders should not have been passed at an interlocutory stage. Therefore, I am not in a position to sustain these orders. Accordingly these orders are quashed. However, this judgment quashing the aforesaid orders will have no impact in the final adjudication of the complaint made by the 2nd respondent. Writ Petition is therefore disposed of quashing Exts.P4 and P6, however directing the first respondent to expedite disposal of Ext.P2 complaint filed by the 2nd respondent untrammeled by this judgment. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No. 3616/2010 :3 :