IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2010 / 25TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 11357 of 2010(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SREEKUMARAN.R, AGED 42, S/O.LATE P.RAMAKRISHNAN ACHARI, INDEEVARAM, THULAMPARAMBU NORTH, MANNARASALA, P.O.HARIPAD, PIN-690 550, NOW WORKING AS HEALTH INSPECTOR GRADE II, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, RANNI- ANGADI. BY ADV. SRI.G.BENO RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVT. HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH, D.M.O'S OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 4. THE MEDICAL OFFICER IN-CHARGE, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, RANNI-ANGADI, NELLIKKAMON.P.O, RANNI, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. MR.ARAVIND KUMAR BABU, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.11357 of 2010 (T) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 16th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner's complaint is that though he submitted Ext.P1 series of applications to the 4th respondent, these have not been forwarded to the 1st respondent. 2. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader submitted that the applications submitted by the petitioner were defective and therefore were returned to the petitioner and that the petitioner did not resubmit the same. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contradicted this contention referring to Ext.P24, which is a letter dated 27/01/2010 submitted by the petitioner to the 4th respondent. According to the learned counsel, along with Ext.P24 the documents have been resubmitted. 4. If as stated by the petitioner, the documents returned to him have been resubmitted to the 4th respondent by Ext.P24, necessarily, the 4th respondent has to do the needful in the matter. WP(C) No.11357/2010 -2- 5. Having regard to the submissions thus made before me, I direct the 4th respondent to verify whether the leave applications, which were returned by him, have been re-submitted by the petitioner. If so, the same shall be processed and necessary action shall be taken. This shall be done on the production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 4th respondent for compliance. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg