IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2008 / 14TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 27718 of 2008(Y) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- M.K.THAJUDEEN, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. SHRI A. MOHAMMED KASIM, PUBLIC WORKS OVERSEER GRADE - I, CORPORATION OF COCHIN, KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, ADV. SMT.I.VINAYAKUMARI. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/10/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ====================================== W.P.(C)No.27718 of 2008 ====================================== Dated this the 6th day of October 2008 JUDGMENT By Ext.P2 judgment delivered on 24.7.2008, this Court directed the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P1 representation within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. By Ext.P3 letter dated 22.8.2008, the Secretary to Government, Local Self Government Department directed the Chief Engineer, Local self Government Department to consider the petitioner's request for temporary promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer under Rule 31(a)(i) of Part II KS&SSR and issue orders before 9.9.2008 and report compliance to the learned Advocate General under intimation to the Government. This writ petition was filed on 17.9.2008 complaining that the second respondent, the Chief Engineer to whom Ext.P3 was addressed has not passed any order in the matter. When the writ petition came up for admission today, Smt.Anu Sivaraman, the learned Government Pleader submitted with reference to the instructions received by her that the second respondent has passed orders as early as on 3.9.2008 rejecting the petitioner's request in Ext.P1. The learned Government Pleader submitted that W.P.(C)27718/2008 2 a copy of the order has also been communicated to the petitioner and that the relief sought in the writ petition has become infructuous. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as infructuous reserving liberty with the petitioner to challenge the order passed on Ext.P1 by the second respondent in other appropriate proceedings. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE css/