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. 22166 of 2010(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ ADITHYA S.,AGED 13 YEARS(MINOR), D/O.H.VIJAYAKUMAR, SATHYALATHIL, MANGALAM PO, THRIKKUNNAPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND GUARDIAN, SARASWATHY.R,RESIDING AT SATHYALATHIL, MANGALAM.PO,THRIKKUNNPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN BRITTO SRI.C.A.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695001. 2. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, TRIVANDRUM. 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, ATTINGAL, TRIVANDRUM. 5. LALITHA, AGED 52, KIZHEKKEKODAYIL, NAVIJYOTHI NAGAR-15, ULIYAKOVIL, KOLLAM-691019. 6. DHANYA, AGED 20, KIZHEKKEKODAYIL, NAVIJYOTHI NAGAR-15, ULIYAKOVIL, KOLLAM-691019. 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. 22166 OF 2010 (U) ===================== Dated this the 15th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner claims to be the daughter of late Sri.VIjaya Kumar, who was a Driver in the Excise Department. According to the petitioner, consequent on the death of Sri.Vijaya Kumar, she is entitled to a share in the benefits that are due and claimed the same by filing Ext.P5 before the 2nd respondent. Subsequently, the Accountant General issued Ext.P7 stating that the benefits have been disbursed to the 5th respondent. Again the petitioner pursued the matter by filing Ext.P8 before the 2nd respondent. From Ext.P9, it would appear that on the directions of the 2nd respondent, the 4th respondent called the petitioner for hearing. According to the petitioner, in pursuance to Ext.P9, both parties were heard by the 4th respondent. However, as orders on Ext.P8 have not been passed, this writ petition is filed. 2. From the facts as pleaded by the petitioner, it is therefore evident that pursuant to Ext.P8, parties have been heard by the 4th respondent and orders are not passed. 3. Therefore, at this stage, what is required is that the 4th WPC No. 22166/10 :2 : respondent should forward the proceedings to the 2nd respondent, and the 2nd respondent should pass orders on Ext.P8. This the 2nd respondent shall do, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 8 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. 4. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before respondents 2 and 4 for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp