IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2010 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 35986 of 2010(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. V. MANIYAPPA KURUP, MACHINE ASSISTANT, COIRFED, ALAPPUZHA- 688 012. 2. C.L. ANDREWS, MACHINE ASSISTANT, COIRFED, ALAPPUZHA- 688 012. 3. P.A. MATHEW, MACHINE ASSISTANT, COIRFED, ALAPPUZHA- 688 012. 4. P.S. THANKACHAN, MACHINE ASSISTANT, COIRFED, ALAPPUZHA- 688 012. BY ADV. SRI.K.KARTHIKEYA PANICKER SMT.DAYA K. PANICKER RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES//DIRECTOR OF COIR DEVELOPMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE COIR MARKETING FEDERATION LTD. NO. 679, COIRFED, ALAPPUZHA - 688 012. 3. THE PRESIDENT, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE COIR MARKETING FEDERATION LTD. NO. 679, COIRFED, ALAPPUZHA - 688 012. BY ADV. SRI.BASANT BALAJI-R1 SRI.K.K.HARIHARAPUTHRAN- R2 & R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P. (C) NO. 35986 OF 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of December, 2010. JUDGMENT This petition has been filed by four employees of the Kerala State Co-operative Coir Marketing Federation (in short Coirfed) challenging Ext.P3 order of transfer. They have raised various contentions to assail the said order of transfer. At the same time, it is evident that the petitioners are also approached the first respondent by filing a representation challenging the above order and raising their objections and contentions against the same. 2. Earlier, another transferee under the very same order of transfer filed W.P.(C) No. 35626 of 2010 before this Court and same was disposed of on 30.11.2010 with a direction to the first respondent herein to consider the representations submitted by him and pass orders thereon besides with such other directions. In the light of the judgment in W.P.(C) No. 35626 of 2010. I am of view that this writ petition can be disposed of. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 W.P. (C) NO. 35986 OF 2010 2 and also the learned Government Pleader. Admittedly, the petitioners have preferred Ext.P4 representation before the first respondent raising their grievances and objections against Ext. P3. Since Ext.P4 representation has been submitted before the respondent and it is still pending the first respondent has to consider the same and to pass orders thereon in accordance with law. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider Ext.P4 and pass orders on Ext.P4 to the extent it pertains to the petitioners with in a period of one month from the date receipt of copy of this judgment. The respondents 2 and 3 shall also consider the question whether the petitioners could be retained at the present station till such a decision is taken by the first respondent. To enable respondent 2 and 3 to take such a decision, Ext.P3 shall be kept in abeyance for a period of three days. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE. mns