IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 13TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2655 of 2010(F) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.LATHEEFA BEEVI, OTHER ATTENDER, REGIONAL INSTITUTE OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF FOOD SAFETY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. ANIL KUMAR, THE COMMISSIONER OF FOOD SAFETY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 2655 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is working as Other Attender in the Health and Family Welfare Department. She is occupying Quarter No.4 attached to the said Department. Earlier, the second respondent had issued an order directing the petitioner to vacate the quarters for the reason that it was allotted to the 4th respondent. That order was challenged by the petitioner in O.S.1510 of 2002 before the Additional Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The said Original Suit was dismissed. Against the said judgment, the petitioner filed A.S. No.223 of 2004 before the District Court, which was also dismissed. Against the judgment in A.S. No.223 of 2004, the petitioner preferred R.S.A. No.1042 of 2009 before this Court and this Court, as per Ext.P2 judgment dismissed the Second Appeal. Paragraph 5 in Ext.P2 judgment reads thus: “5. Learned counsel requested that appellant may be granted breathing time to vacate the quarter. However, without understanding the difficulties if any of the Department concerned I do not consider it justifiable or proper to grant time as requested by learned counsel. But I make it clear that it W.P.(C) NO. 2655/2010 2 will be open to respondent No.2 to consider whether appellant could be permitted to continue in quarter No. IV or other quarters notwithstanding dismissal of this Second Appeal till eligible candidates are required to be accommodated if it is otherwise not inconvenient to the Department, of course subject to the rules and regulations of the Department concerned and if the rules so permit.” 2. During the pendency of the Second Appeal, a new Commissionerate was formed under Section 30(1) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. After its formation, the Government passed orders earmarking certain areas in the premises of the Kerala State Health and Family Welfare Institute, Thycaud for the establishment of the Commissionerate. As a result of the said earmarking of areas, Quarter No.4 occupied by the petitioner was also allotted for the said purpose. Aggrieved by the said order in allotting the quarters occupied by the petitioner for the aforesaid purpose, this Writ Petition is filed. 3. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P7 order whereby she was directed to vacate Quarter No.4. According to her, the 4th respondent is instrumental for such a decision. But, it is a fact that the decision to allot the premises of the Kerala State Health and Family Welfare Institute, Thycaud for the establishment of the Commissionerate was taken by the W.P.(C) NO. 2655/2010 3 Secretary to Government and, therefore, I am unable to uphold the said contention of the petitioner. The petitioner submits that she had filed Ext.P8 representation dated 15.1.2010 before the authorities in this regard. The appropriate authority to consider any request on that behalf is the first respondent. As per Ext.P2 judgment, liberty was given to the petitioner to approach the authorities with a request to permit her to continue occupation of Quarter No.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already filed such a representation before the first respondent. The Writ Petition is, therefore, disposed of, directing first respondent to consider the representation, if any, received from the petitioner, for the purpose of allowing her to continue occupying Quarter No.4, within a period of three weeks from today. The petitioner is also free to submit a fresh representation, supplementing the earlier one submitted by her within a period of one week from today. Till an order is passed on the representation filed by the petitioner, she shall not be evicted from Quarter No.4, if not already evicted. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) sp/ W.P.(C) NO. 2655/2010 4 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C) NO. 2655/2010 JUDGMENT 2nd February, 2010