IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2009 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 11900 of 2009(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SILVY TITUS, KURICHIYIL BHAVAN, S.V.MARKET.P.O., AYANI VELIKULANGARA, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.ACHUTHA KURUP, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.BINDU SREEKUMAR SMT.LEENA MURALI RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES & CONSUMER AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, KOLLAM. 4. LAILAMANY.T.K., LIBIN NIVAS, S.V.MARKET.P.O., AYANI VELIKULANGARA THEKKU, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM. MR.P.N.SANTHOSH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.11900 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 8th day of April, 2009 J U D G M E N T By Ext.P1, applications were invited for the appointment of ARD No.115 of Karunagappilly Taluk. After completion of the process of selection, the 3rd respondent issued Ext.P4 proceedings ordering appointment of the petitioner and Ext.P5 is the order of appointment that was issued. On the strength of appointment, the petitioner submits that he started the business. 2. Appeal was filed by the 4th respondent, which was rejected by the Collector by Ext.P6 order. A revision was filed before the 2nd respondent and by Ext.P7 order, though the revision was rejected, fresh notification was ordered. The petitioner submits that against Ext.P7, in so far as it orders fresh advertisement, he filed Ext.P9 appeal before the 1st respondent and the appeal is pending. In the meanwhile, the Taluk Supply Officer, issued Ext.P8 ordering implementation of Ext.P7. It is in this background, seeking expeditious orders on Ext.P9 appeal, this writ petition has been filed. 3. As already noticed, on the strength of Exts.P4 & P5, the WP(C) No.11900/2009 -2- petitioner states that he has already commenced business. If that be so, considering the pendency of the appeal, until the disposal of Ext.P9 appeal, I do not think that there is any justification for upsetting the status quo as it prevails today. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the 1st respondent shall consider and pass orders on Ext.P9 appeal filed by the petitioner with notice to the petitioner and the 4th respondent. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months of production of a copy of this judgment. 4. It is directed that in the meanwhile, further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P7 & P8 directing invitation of fresh notification will be kept in abeyance. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent for compliance, within two weeks from today. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg