IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2008 / 22ND PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 8163 of 2008(V) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- N.K.RAVINDRAN. AGED 50,S/O.N.N.KUNJUNNI,NARAYANATHARA HOUSE, CHOOLISSERY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, RE SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, MANJERI. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF SURVEY & LAND RECORDS, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF SURVEY & LAND RECORDS, VAZHUTHAKAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPYTY DIRECTOR, SURVEY & LAND RECORDS,COLLECTORATE, THRISSUR. 3. SOBHANA,DEPUTY DIRECTOR, SURVEY & LAND RECORDS,COLLECTORATE, THRISSUR. 4. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT., REVENUE DEPARTMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).8163/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 12th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner challenges Ext.P1 order of suspension pending enquiry. Elaborate contentions have been raised in this writ petition. It is contended that the order of suspension is the culmination of a systematic attempt to victimise the petitioner and specific reference is made in this regard to the role of the Deputy Director of Survey and Land records. Order of suspension is issued by the first respondent, stated to be on the request of the second respondent. 2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.G.Sreekumar (Chelur) and the learned Government Pleader. 3. Mr.Sreekumar contends that the issue, which had attained finality as early as in 1993 and thereafter taken note of in Ext.P22 judgment in the year 2006, is now referred to for the purpose of contending that there has W.P.(C).8163/2008 2 been lapse on the part of the petitioner. He submits that after all when he issued an order in his capacity as Superintendent of Survey and Land Records, rejecting the claim made by the petitioner in Ext.P22, it was set aside by this Court in Ext.P22 judgment. Consequential action, now taken pursuant to Ext.P22, is sought to be characterized as the administrative lapse on the part of the Departmental officials. This is wholly misconceived, according to him. 4. In my view, these are matter which should be considered by the Government in the first instance. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is necessary that the Government considers the appeal of the petitioner within a specific time frame. 5. In the result, writ petition is disposed of in the following terms: 6. If the petitioner prefers an appeal against Ext.P1 before the fourth respondent on or before 25.3.2008, it W.P.(C).8163/2008 3 shall be looked into and appropriate orders passed thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, on or before 25.4.2008. If the Government proposes to pass orders adverse to the petitioner, then the petitioner shall be heard in that regard. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition also along with the copy of the appeal and the judgment. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs