IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2009 / 1ST MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 36119 of 2008(Y) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): -------------------- SHAHUL HAMEED, AGED 62, S/O. MOHAMMED KUNJU, PUTHENPURAYIL, SHAMITA NIVAS, PALAKKAL, THEVALAKKARA P.O., KOLLAM , KERALA. BY ADV. SRI.R.ANIL RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, KOLLAM. 4. MOHAMMED KUNJU, S/O. ABDUL HAMEED, VAIRAVANPURAIDAM, PALAKKAL, THEVALAKKARA P.O., KOLLAM. 5. K.M. SULAIMAN KUNJU, S/O. MUHAMMED KUNJU, KOCHUVEEDU, PADINJATTUKARA, THEVALAKKARA P.O., KOLLAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 36119 OF 2008 (Y) ==================== Dated this the 21st day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T Though notice has been served on respondents 4 and 5, there is no appearance on their behalf. 2. The allegation in the writ petition is that respondents 4 and 5, acting as Secretary and Convener, had obtained substantial amounts from the Deputy Director of Education, Kollam as financial aid under the Madrassa Modernisation Programme for the year 2005-06. Complaints were raised that they had misappropriated the amounts and it would appear that the Deputy Director of Education had conducted an enquiry and the report has been submitted with the findings against respondents 4 and 5. 3. Petitioner submits that the issue is now pending before the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent has to take a decision regarding the further course of action to be taken against the aforesaid respondents. Urging the 1st respondent to take a final decision in this matter, it would appear that the petitioner has filed Exts.P2 and P4, and in this writ petition he complaints that not only that no action has been taken , but also that there has not been any response to the representations made. WPC 36119/08 :2 : 4. Taking into account the aforesaid grievance of the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of directing that if Exts. P2 and P4 have been received and are pending, the 1st respondent shall take appropriate action thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 6 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp