IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2010 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 11626 of 2010(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- NAZEEMA, W/O.LATE SALAHUDEEN, VELIAYYATHU HOUSE, MUKKAVALA PERINGALA MURI, KAYAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR SRI.K.JAGADEESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KAYAMKULAM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KAYAMKULAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, KAYAMKULAM MUNICIPALITY, KAYAMKULAM. 3. ABDULLAKUTTY, S/O. JAFFER KUNJU, THUNDAYATH HOUSE, WARD NO.14, MUKKAVALA EAST, KAYAMKULAM. ADV. SRI.RAYA SHENOI,SC,KAYAMKULAM MUNICIPAL FOR R1-2 SRI.M.V.THAMBAN FOR R3 SRI.R.REJI FOR R3 SMT.THARA THAMBAN FOR R3 SRI.V.K.SATHYANATHAN FOR R3 SRI.B.BIPIN FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 11626 of 2010-C - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of May, 2010. JUDGMENT The main prayer in this writ petition is for a direction to the second respondent to implement Ext.P3 immediately. When the matter came up for hearing on 9.4.2010, it was pointed out that the appeal mentioned in Ext.P4 judgment, has already been disposed of. Learned counsel for the third respondent then submitted that the appeal was disposed of without hearing him. This Court, therefore, directed the Municipality to file an affidavit in the matter, pursuant to which the Municipality has filed an affidavit. 2. It is averred in the affidavit that the appeal was once rejected by the Chairman on 9.3.2010 and the Council has also considered the appeal by resolution dated 16.4.2010, as directed in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.8172/2010. Later, the second respondent issued the notice dated 17.4.2010 informing the third respondent about the dismissal of the appeal by the Council and informing him that further steps pursuant to Ext.P3 will be taken against him. The same has been produced as Ext.R2(b). It is also mentioned that challenging these proceedings, the third respondent has filed a revision petition before the Tribunal for Local Self Government wpc 11626/2010 2 Institutions which is pending. In I.A. No.505/2010, an interim order of stay has already been passed by the Tribunal. In the light of the above, the matter has to be considered by the Tribunal and therefore, the prayers in the writ petition at this stage, need not be gone into. Therefore, the writ petition is closed. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/