IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2010 / 24TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 28702 of 2005(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- P.RAJAN, ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, NILAMBUR NORTH. BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA SRI.K.I.SAGEER RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST & WILD LIFE, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS(ADMN.), FOREST HEADQUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 28702 OF 2005 (P) ===================== Dated this the 15th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P3, a memo of charges. The case of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent, who issued the memo of charges is incompetent to issue the same. It is on that ground, the writ petition is filed. 2. If as stated by the petitioner, the 3rd respondent is incompetent, it is for the petitioner to raise the incompetency of the 3rd respondent before the respondent himself. It is only after a prejudicial order is passed, can the petitioner seek redressal before a Court of law. Therefore, without prejudice to the contentions, the writ petition is closed, leaving it open to the authorities to proceed with Ext.P3, in accordance with law. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp