IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2009 / 27TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 29522 of 2009(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- P.M.SHAJI, U.D.CLERK, MUNDAKKAYAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KOTTAYAM DT. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.PURUSHOTHAMA KAIMAL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT, CIVIL LANE, KOTTAYAM. 2. SINDHUMOL, U.D.CLERK, PERUVANTHANAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, IDUKKI DT. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.ANTONY MUKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 29522 OF 2009 (I) ===================== Dated this the 19th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P2 to the extent, he has been transferred from Mundakkayam Grama Panchayat Office to Koruthode Grama Panchayat Office. According to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent, who is at Sl.No.36 in Ext.P2, who was working in Peruvanthanam Grama Panchayat had requested for a transfer to Koruthode Grama Panchayat and that the proposal was also to concede that request. It is stated that, however, without any rhyme or reason, petitioner, who has only recently joined Mundakkayam Grama Panchayat Office has now been transferred by Ext.P2 order. Petitioner submits that complaining of the above and seeking his retention at Mundakkayam Grama Panchayat, he has filed Ext.P4 before the 1st respondent. He is also referring to Ext.P3 request made by the President of the Panchayat itself requesting for his retention in Mundakkayam Grama Panchayat. It is stated that Exts.P3 and P4 are pending before the 1st respondent and therefore petitioner seeks an order requiring the 1st respondent to pass orders on Exts.P3 an P4. WPC 29522/09 :2 : Having regard to the pendency of Exts.P3 and P4, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders thereon. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 3 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. However, it is clarified that any order prejudicial to the 2nd respondent shall be passed only with notice to her as well. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp