IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2010 / 26TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23962 of 2010(U) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- V.DEVADASAN AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. VASUDEVAN, RESIDING AT MANNATHUKAVU HOUSE, CHERAMANGALAM.P.O, MELARKODE VIA, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE CHERAMANGALAM KSHEERA VYAVASAYA SAHAKARANA SANGHOM LTD., NO.P-12 (D), CHERAMANGALAM.P.O, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-678 703. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DAIRY DEVELOPMENT OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DAIRY DEVELOPMENT CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD-678 001. 3. THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY & DAIRY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 4. K.V.KANDANMUTHAN, MANALIKKAD VEEDU, CHERAMANGALAM, PALAKKAD-678 703. R1 & R5 BY ADV. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ R2 & R3 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.S.MUHAMMED HASHIM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.23962/2010 U APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF ORDER OF 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 18/05/2010. P2: COPY OF ORDER DTD. 6/05/2010 IN WPC.NO.16158/10. P3: COPY OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE COMMITTEE OF 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 27/05/2010. P4: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD. 27/05/2010 ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 2/06/2010 IN WPC.NO.15495/2010. P6: COPY OF ORDFER OF 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 22/06/2010. P6(A): LEGIBLE COPY OF EXHIBIT P6. P7: COPY OF THE REVISION DTD. 29/07/2010 FILED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P8: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR STAY FILED ALONG WITH EXHIBIT P7 REVISION. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 23962 OF 2010 U ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th August, 2010. JUDGMENT Adv. N.Reghuraj who appears for respondents 1 and 5 submits that the petitioner has challenged Ext.P6 by filing Ext.P7 revision before the third respondent. Ext.P8 stay petition has also been filed along with Ext.P7. It is submitted that, on Ext.P8 an order of stay has been granted by the third respondent and therefore, this writ petition has become practically infructuous, considering that the reliefs sought for herein is against implementation of Ext.P6. The counsel for the petitioner submits that since the third respondent has already granted an order of stay, no further orders are required in this writ petition. Recording the above submissions this writ petition is closed. It is made clear that this order is without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to challenge any order that may be passed by the third respondent on Ext.P7. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj 2 3