IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 28TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 4613 of 2009(Y) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER : --------------------- M.N.HANEES KHAN, PARAYIL HOUSE ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. .V.V.ASOKAN SMT.S.AMINA RESPONDENTS : ----------------------- 1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOTTAYAM., 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SECRETARY FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THOMAS MATHEW KOONANICKAL HOUSE, THELLAKOM,PO,KOTTAYAM 5. DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, KOTTAYAM 6. TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, KOTTAYAM. ADV. MR. I.MATHEW JOHN (K) - R4 MR..AJEESH K.SASI – R4 MR. M.A. ASIF, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 4613/ 2009 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEDING OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT. EXHIBITP3(a): TRUE COPY OF THE STAY APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT . EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO.1972/2009. EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN I.A. NO.1926/2009 IN WP(C) NO. 1972 OF 2009. EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE scm ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C) No.4613 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT Controversy in this writ petition is concerning the appointment of AWD No.VII at Ettumanoor, for which, applications were invited on 6/01/2006. Petitioner, the 4th respondent and certain other candidates responded to the notification. Finally by Ext. P1 order passed by the first respondent, the 4th respondent was appointed. Appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected by the second respondent as per Exhibit P2 order. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed Exhibit P3, revision and Exhibit P3(a) stay petition before the 3rd respondent. 2. Thereafter, he approached this court by filing WP(C) No.1972 of 2009. That writ petition was disposed of by Exhibit P4 judgment directing that orders be passed on Exhibit P3(a) within three weeks, keeping in abeyance proceedings pursuant to Exhibit P1 in the meanwhile. Subsequently, complaining that within the three weeks specified in Exhibit P4, orders on Exhibit W.P.(C) No.4613/2009 2 P3(a) were not passed and that in the meanwhile, status quo will expire, leading to the implementation of Exhibit P1, petitioner sought modification of Exhibit P4. Considering the request so made, this Court passed Exhibit P5 order dated 6/02/2009 modifying Exhibit P4 judgment and directing that status quo will continue until orders are passed on Exhibit P3(a). By Exhibit P6 order dated 6/02/2009 itself, the 3rd respondent declined the stay sought for. Challenging that order, this writ petition has been filed. 3. Considering the main complaint of the petitioner that Exhibit P6 order was passed without hearing him, this Court stayed Exhibit P1 for a period of one month by order dated 11/02/2009. Today the 4th respondent has entered appearance and was also heard. 4. There is no dispute on either side that Exhibit P6 order was passed without hearing the petitioner. If that be so, the said order is one vitiated by violation of the principles of natural justice. In view of this, I feel that it is only appropriate for the 3rd respondent to finally dispose of Exhibit P3 revision filed, W.P.(C) No.4613/2009 3 keeping in abeyance further proceedings pursuant to Exhibit P1. 5. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to issue notice, hear the parties and dispose of Exhibit P3 revision as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks of production of copy of this judgment. It is directed that in the meantime, further proceedings pursuant to Exhibit P1 will be kept in abeyance. Petitioner or the 4th respondent shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 3rd respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm