IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 21ST MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 28288 of 2008(P) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- E.L. JOSEPH, S/O. LENIF, ELENJIKKAL HOUSE, CHAPPARA DESOM, PULLOOT, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR. BY ADVS. MR.V.B.HARI NARAYANAN, SMT.M.J.RAJASREE, MR.T.GOPALAKRISHNAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TRICHUR. 3. DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, TRICHUR. *ADDL.R4. P.K. MUKUNDAN, S/O. KUNJAN, PANIKKAVEETTIL HOUSE, CHENDRAPINNI VILLAGE, KODUNGALLOOR TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. *IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A. NO. 12447/08 DTD. 23/10/08. *ADDL.R5. JOHN P.J, PELLISSERY HOUSE, ARAKULAM WEST, KODUNGALLOOR.P.O. *IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER IN I.A. NO. 12477/08 DTD. 23/10/08. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. M.R. SREELATHA, ADDL.R4 BY ADV. MR. T. GOPALAKRISHNAN, ADDL.R5 BY ADVS. MR.PHILIP T.VARGHESE, MR.THOMAS T.VARGHESE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/02/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.28288/2008-P: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DTD. 24/02/2006 ISSUED BY THE R.2. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FORM OF THE PETITIONER DTD. 27/03/2006 ALONG WITH THE ATTACHED DOCUMENTS. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER OF INJUNCTION DTD. 27/03/2006. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 25/06/2008. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 30/06/2008 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE R.2. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE APPLICATION AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R4.A: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION NO. F1/1231/2003 DTD. 24/02/2006. EXT.R4.B: COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER DTD. 27/03/2006. EXT.R4.C: COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN W.P.(C).NO.6874/06 DTD. 24/03/2006. EXT.R4.D: COPY OF THE ORDER VACATING THE STAY IN W.P.(C). NO. 6874/06 BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT DTD. 07/08/2007. EXT.R4.E: COPY OF THE ORDER VACATING THE STAY IN I.A. NO. 2322/06 IN O.S. NO. 821/06 DTD. 14/12/2007 BY THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, THRISSUR. EXT.R4.F: COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.6953/08 DTD. 14/03/2008. EXT.R4.G: COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).14260/08 DTD. 18/06/2008. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C) No.28288 of 2008 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner seeks to quash Exhibit P1 notification or in the alternative, a direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to enlarge the time for submission of application pursuant to Exhibit P1. 2. Facts of the case are that Exhibit P1 notification was issued by the respondents inviting application for the appointment of AWD No. 3 at Mathilakam, Kodungallor. Last date for the receipt of the application was proceeded as 27/03/2006. According to the petitioner, he approached the respondent with an application, but however the same was declined to be accepted for the reason that this Court had passed Exhibit R4(c) order of stay of further proceedings pursuant to Exhibit P1 in W.P(C) No. 6874/2006. It is stated similarly, Exhibit P3 order of injunction restraining the respondents from proceeding with Exhibit P1 was also passed by the Munsiff Court,Trichur in I.A No.2322/2006 in O.S No.821/2006. 3. According to the petitioner, the Exhibit R4(c) order W.P.(C) No.28288 /2008 2 was vacated by Exhibit R4(d) order dated 7/08/2007, and by order dated 14/12/2007, Exhibit P3 order of injunction passed by the civil court was also vacated. He submits that thereupon in 2008 he approached the respondents with an application, but however the same was declined to be accepted on the ground that the last date for receipt of applications specified in Exhibit P1 had expired long ago. It is in this circumstances, the petitioner has been filed this writ petition with the prayers mentioned above. 4. According to him, the respondents should either not proceed with Exhibit P1 notification or his application should also be accepted and considered. 5. Petitioner himself says that three applicants were short listed, although, none of these three short listed applicants have been impleaded in this petition. Two of them themselves got impleaded and the 3rd person, whose application is Exhibit P6 and has not even now been impleaded. 6. Petitioner submits that among the three, Mr. K.R Joshy is one of the candidate short listed by the respondents. It W.P.(C) No.28288 /2008 3 is stated that Exhibit P6 application made by him is dated 27/03/2006 and that since this Court has passed Exhibit R4(c) order of stay dated 24/03/2006, Exhibit P6 application could not have been accepted on 27/03/2006. 7. Yet another contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that experience certificate, consent letter and ownership certificate of the landlord of the premises offered by him are dated 28/05/2008. It is stated that either date of the application is fabricated or the application itself was smuggled in subsequently or these certificates are accepted far later than the submission of the application. 8. In so far as the 4th respondent, another short listed candidate is concerned, petitioner submits that his application was accepted subsequent to Exhibit R4(c) order. It is stated similar is the case of the additional 5th respondent also. 9. In so far as Mr. Joshy is concerned, I must say that since Joshy is not a party to the writ petition, this court will not be justified in entering into any finding as against him. On the other hand, unless adverse finding is entered into against Mr. W.P.(C) No.28288 /2008 4 Joshy, petitioner cannot succeed. Hence Mr. Joshy being a necessary party, ought to have been impleaded and his non- impleadment is fatal in so far as the petitioner is concerned. 10. Even otherwise, the case of the petitioner that applications of the short listed candidates were accepted subsequent to 24/03/2006. This very issue was considered by this Court in R4(g) judgment in W.P.(C) No.14260/2008, where the learned judge did not find any fault with such acceptance of the applications. If that be so, case of the petitioner that application should not have been accepted subsequent to 24/03/2008 only be rejected. 11. In addition to this, I should also note the contention of the learned Government pleader that the petitioner did not approach the authorities with an application, any time before 24/03/2008 or the last date prescribed in Exhibit P1 notification. Apart from making an averment that he approached authorities with an application and that the same was declined to be accepted, petitioner has not placed any material to substantiate this contention. When this averment of the petitioner is disputed, W.P.(C) No.28288 /2008 5 in the absence of any supporting materials, I would not be justified in accepting the contention of the counsel for the petitioner. Therefore this plea of the petitioner also has to be rejected and I do so. Writ petition fails and hence, it is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE scm