IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2010 / 28TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 32092 of 2010(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.A. JOSE AND COMPANY, AWD NO.6, METHALA, KODUNGALLUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER-E.O. LAWRENCE. BY ADV. SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER SRI.R.JAIKRISHNA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TRICHUR-680001. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-690001. 3. THE COMMISSIONER, CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 4. M.K.MUKUNDAN, S/O. KUNJAN, PANIKKAVEETTIL, CHENTHRAPINI, KODUNGALLUR-680001. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 32092 of 2010 J ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 20th day of October, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner's case is that Ext.P1 notification was issued for the appointment of AWD No.3 at Mathilakam. Petitioner submits that against Ext.P1, he filed an appeal and by Ext.P3 order dated 19-08-2010 passed by the Government, exercising its revisional powers under the Rationing Order, Government set aside Ext.P1 notification. 2. In the meantime, the fourth respondent filed W.P. (C) No.16822/2010, praying for a direction to the authorities to complete the proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 notification. According to the petitioner, that writ petition, which was filed without impleading him as a party, was disposed of by Ext.P4 judgment dated 05-07-2010, directing to finalise the proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 within three months. 3. It is stated that despite the fact that in the meantime, the Government, by Ext.P3 dated 19-08-2010, cancelled Ext.P1 notification, Ext.P5 notification has been W.P.(C) No.32092/10 : 2 : issued by the first respondent for taking action pursuant to the direction contained in Ext.P4 judgment, in order to complete the proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 notification. Contention raised by the petitioner is that the first respondent has issued Ext.P5 despite having been told that Ext.P1 notification is in existence. It is with this grievance, this writ petition is filed. 4. In my view, irrespective of Ext.P3 Government Order, so long as Ext.P4 judgment remains, petitioner cannot object to Ext.P5. In that view, if the petitioner was aggrieved by Ext.P5, the first thing that the petitioner should have done was to seek review of Ext.P4 judgment, pointing out Ext.P3 Government Order. Therefore, leaving it open to the petitioner to seek review of Ext.P4 judgment, this writ petition is disposed of. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks