IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 7TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 25937 of 2011(N) ----------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ DEEPA N.RAVEENDRAN, NADUVILETH HOUSE, KANNIMALA PO, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK, KOTTAYAM. BY ADVS. SRI.V.V.ASOKAN, SMT.RUKHIYABI MOHD KUNHI. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, KOTTAYAM - 686 001. 2. TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, KANJIRAPPALLY - 686 507. 3. ANZIYA RAHIM, W/O.ANEESH MOHAMMED, KADAVUKARA HOUSE, PUNCHAVAYAL PO., MUNDAKKAYAM, KOTTAYAM - 686 001. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM - 686 001. R1, R2 & R4 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.25937/2011 N APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD.11/08/2010. P2: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 11/08/2010. P3: COPY OF THE INITIAL INTERIM ORDER IN WP(C) NO.28096/2010 DTD. 24/09/2010. P4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO.906/2010 DTD. 3/12/2010. P5: COPY OF THE ORDER VACATING THE INTERIM ORDER IN WP(C) NO.28096/2010 DTD. 25/03/2011. P6: COPY OF THE HEARING NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 29/07/2011. P7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 4 DTD. 18/08/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).25937/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 29th day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT The first respondent invited application for appointment of ARD No.88 of Kannimala, Kanjirappally Taluk. Notification was issued on 11.8.2010. Petitioner and the third respondent applied in response to the notification. The delay in finalization of the appointment is what is led the petitioner to file this writ petition. 2. According to the petitioner, the pendency of W.P.(C). 28096/2010 filed by the third respondent is apparently the reason for keeping the matter pending. However the pleadings in the writ petition itself show that the interim order of stay granted in that writ petition has since been vacated. In that view of the matter, pendency of the writ petition could not have been stood in the way of finalization of the appointment. 3. Therefore the first respondent is directed to finalize the appointment in pursuance to the notification for appointment of ARD No. mentioned above. This shall be done as expeditiously as W.P.(C).25937/11 2 possible, at any rate within six weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs The words “the third respondent” occurring in the 3rd sentence of the first paragraph of the judgment dated 29.9.2011 in W.P.(C).25937/2011 is corrected and substituted as “another”, vide order dated 17.10.2011 in I.A.16165/11 in W.P.(C). 25937/2011.