IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2009 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 35080 of 2009(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.V.UNNI, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. K.M.VARKEY, KANJIRATHINKAL HOUSE, KUREEKADU DESOM, KUREEKADU VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR THALUK. BY ADV. SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR SMT.V.SHYLAJA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KUREEKADU VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. PRABHAKARAN, FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN, ELANGAPPILY, KUREEKADU.P.O., KUREEKADU. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. MURALI, S/O. PRABHAKARAN, ELANGAPPILLY HOUSE, KUREEKADU.P.O. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY GP SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J ------------------- W.P.(C).35080/2009 -------------------- Dated this the 7th day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT Ext.P3 order passed by the Sub Collector, Fort Kochi, rejecting Ext.P1 appeal filed by the petitioner under Rule 18 of the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966, is under challenge in this writ petition. As per Rule 18(iv) of the Transfer of Registry Rules, the District Collector is empowered to revise Ext.P3. The District Collector can call for the revenue records, examine them, hear the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 and take a decision thereafter. The petitioner thus has an effective and meaningful alternate remedy. In such circumstances, I find no reason to entertain this writ petition. I accordingly decline jurisdiction and dismiss the writ petition leaving open the petitioner's contentions and reserving liberty with him to file a revision petition before the District Collector under Rule 18(iv) of the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge mrcs