IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 30TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 3895 of 2008(L) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- DINA ABRAHAM, W/O.BINOD ABRAHAM, CHEMMARIKKATT HOUSE, SHORANUR, OTTAPPALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- -- 1. THE ADDITIONAL INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES, OTTAPPALAM, OTTAPPALAM-3. 2. KUNJAMMA.A. PALAL, W/O.DR.ALIAS PALAL, PALAL HOUSE, S.R.K.NAGAR, OTTAPPALAM-3. 3. K.VEERANKUTTY, PALAL WOOD INDUSTRIES, S.R.K.NAGAR, OTTAPPALAM-3. BY GP. SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C)No. 3895 OF 2008 ----------------------------- DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that her deceased father was the licensee of a saw mill by name Palal Wood Industries at Ottappalam. According to the petitioner on the death of her father, she and the other children of the deceased along with the 2nd respondent, mother, inherited the mill. But, however, the 2nd respondent without the consent of the other legal representatives transferred the saw mill to the 3rd respondent. On account of this, the petitioner had lodged Exhibit P6 complaint to the first respondent. According to the petitioner, the 1st respondent directed her to produce certain documents by issuing Exhibit P7 notice and that those documents were also produced. Complaining that the enquiry initiated on Exhibit P6 remains inconclusive, this writ petition has been filed. 2. On instructions, the learned Government Pleader submits that after receipt of Exhibit P6, notice was issued to the 2nd respondent to appear before the 1st respondent on 16.1.2008 and as she failed to turn up, notice has been issued again. It is also stated that the licence stands renewed till 2010 which submission is contradicted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. W.P.(C)No. 3895/08 2 3. Irrespective of the controversy that raised by either side before me, since admittedly enquiry on Exhibit P6 has been initiated by the 1st respondent, it is for the 1st respondent to conclude the same as expeditiously as possible, after hearing the parties likely to be affected by the outcome of the enquiry. Now that the 1st respondent has issued notice to the petitioner and 2nd respondent also, I direct the 1st respondent to conclude the enquiry as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within eight weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. dsn -