IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2009 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 835 of 2006(Y) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. THE DIRETOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, KOLLAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. M.A. ASIF RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SMT.S. BABY SAROJA, AKSHAYA VADAKKUMBHAGOM, KOLLAM. 2. KERALA STASTE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TRIVANDRUM REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN FOR R1 SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR FOR R1 SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD FOR R1 SRI.K.K.RAJEEV FOR R1 SRI.T.K.KAMALJITH FOR R1 SMT.C.V.RAJALAKSHMI FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPEDIX Ext.P1. A true copy of the Appeal Memorandum. Ext.P2. A true copy of the petitioner for restoration filed by the petitioner. Ext.P3. A true copy of the Affidavit in support of the petition for condonation of delay in filing petition of restoration. Ext.P4. A true copy of the notice issued by the District Forum, Kollam posting the EP.NO.98/05 TO 13.10.06. // true copy.// P.A to Judge. ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No.835 OF 2006 ------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2009. JUDGMENT The first respondent herein is a retired Selection Grade Lecturer from S.N. College, Kollam. He approached the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kollam by filing O.P.NO.601/00, essentially complaining that her provident fund dues were not released. Final order was passed in her favour. 2. Thereupon, the petitioner herein filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent. However, the appeal was dismissed for default on 10.2.2005. There upon the petitioner sought its restoration by filing Ext.P2 along with Ext.P3 application for condonation of delay. In the meanwhile as execution was initiated by Ext.P4, this writ petition was filed. WP(c).No.835/06 2 3. At the stage of admission this court granted stay of personal appearance pursuant to Ext.P4 by order dated 11.1.2006 and which was extended thereafter. When the matter was taken up today for hearing, I heard the Government Pleader on behalf of the petitioner and Dr.K.P Satheesan appearing for the Ist respondent. 4. All that the petitioner now seeks is a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider Exts.P2 and P3 applications and pass orders thereon. As already notice, Ext.P2 is an application for restoration of the appeal and Ext.P3 is an application for condoning the delay in fling Ext.P2, Taking into account the pendency of these applications, I feel that it is only proper that the 2nd respondent be directed to pass orders thereon. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing that , if Exts.P2 and P3 are still pending, the 2nd respondent shall consider Exts.P2 and P3 with notice to the first respondent, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 8 weeks from WP(c).No.835/06 3 the date of production of a copy of the judgment. It is clarified that in the meanwhile the stay order passed by this court on 11.1.2006 and extended thereafter will remain in force. Needless to say that if orders have already passed on Exts.P2 and P3, the writ petition will stand dismissed and parties wll be governed by such orders. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.835/06 4