IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2010 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 10772 of 2010(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.GOPINATHA PILLAI, SHOP NO.1, SANTHINAGAR SHOPPING COMPLEX SANTHINAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR SMT.P.A.ANITHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SC SRI. A.JAYASANKAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).10772/2010 -------------------- Dated this the 30th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Heard both sides. 2. The prayer sought in the writ petition is to quash Exts.P6 and P7. 3. On an earlier occasion, petitioner had approached this Court with the very same complaint by filing W.P.(C). 19642/2007. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P4 judgment directing the Board to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 representation filed by the petitioner. Stay was also granted on the petitioner remitting Rs.50,000/- within three weeks. Though the Board filed a Writ Appeal against the said judgment as W.A.2638/2007, by Ext.P5 judgment the Writ Appeal was dismissed. Therefore by virtue of Exts.P4 and P5 judgments of this Court, Ext.P5 representation mentioned in the judgment ought to have been considered by the Board itself. W.P.(C).10772/10 2 4. On the other hand, Secretary of the Housing Board considered the matter and issued Ext.P6 based on which Ext.P7 also has been issued. It is challenging Exts.P6 and P7, the writ petition is filed. 5. Learned Standing Counsel on instructions, confirms that the matter has not been considered by the Board as directed in the judgment. If it is the factual position, I must hold that Exts.P6 and P7 are issued without jurisdiction. 6. Therefore I quash Exts.P6 and P7 and direct the 1st respondent Board to consider Ext.P5 representation mentioned in Ext.P4 judgment. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs