IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2011 / 16TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 411 of 2011(B) ------------------------------------ PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. DR.SATHEESH KUMAR.R, B.R.HOSPITAL, NEDUNGOLAM,PARAVOOR,KOLLAM. 2. K.BABU,BHINDU BHAVAN,B.R.BUILDING, NEDUNGOLAM.P.O,PARAVOOR-KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.S.RAJESH. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVAANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY,PARAVOOR MUNICIPALITY, PARAVOOR,KOLLAM. 3. THE TOWN PLANNER,DEPARTMENT OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING,KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4. THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER,GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,KOLLAM. R1, R3, R4 & R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/01/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.411 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT The grievance of the petitioner is with respect to the inordinate delay in the matter of disposal of Ext.P4 application dated 15.2.2010 submitted by the petitioner for renewal of registration of the hospital belonging to him. In view of the order I propose to pass in this Writ Petition I do not think it necessary to issue notice to the respondents. As already noticed hereinbefore, the grievance of the petitioner is with respect to the inaction to dispose of Ext.P4 application submitted before the competent authority. Considering the fact that on earlier occasions registration was renewed by the second respondent, there cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that the second respondent is competent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 application. In the said circumstances, without making any observations as to the merits of the contentions raised in this Writ Petition, it is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 application, in accordance with law. This shall be done expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO. 2 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO. 3