IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2010 / 21TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 13929 of 2009(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.P.ABDU, S/O.POCKER, THOTTUMPURAM HOUSE, KUNNAMANGALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (RR) (BANK LOAN ARREARS COLLECTION), KOZHIKODE. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KUNNAMANGALAM VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. ING VYSYA BANK LTD., RETAIL BANKING SECTION, P.K.COMPLEX, KOCHI-32, REPRESENTED BY ITS BANK MANAGER. 4. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KOZHIKODE. 5. LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA FOR R3 SRI.M.S.KALESH FOR R3 SRI.HARISH GOPINATH FOR R3 SRI.V.VINAY MENON FOR R3 SRI.M.AJAY (IRUMPANAM) FOR R3 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MATHEW VADAKKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ----------------------------------------------- WP(C) No. 13929 of 2009 ----------------------------------- Dated, this the 11th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is challenging Ext.P7 order dated 02.05.2009 passed by the 6th respondent mainly on the ground that Ext.P6 revision petition filed by the petitioner was heard and decided by an officer representing the Government, but lower in level than the Authority who considered and passed Ext.P5 order, i.e., the Land Revenue Commissioner, against which Ext.P6 Revision Petition was filed before the Government. The prayer is to direct the Principal Secretary, i.e., the 6th respondent to consider Ext.P6 Revision Petition afresh and to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. 2. The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 and 4 to 6 and also the Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent submit that the issue is squarely covered against the petitioner as per the decision rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in Sudheer Vs. M.V. Susheela and others [2009 (3) KHC 991 (FB)], whereby it has been held that the authority who passed ExtP7 order for and on behalf of the Government is very much competent and empowered to pass such order in exercise of the power, WP(C) No.13929/2009 2 as per 'rules of business' of the Government of Kerala and hence that the challenge is not correct or sustainable. n the above facts and circumstances, the challenge raised against Ext.P7 is rather wrong and misconceived. Accordingly, interference is declined and the Writ Petition is dismissed. P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE dnc