IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2010 / 16TH POUSHA 1931 WA.No. 2694 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.27976/2009 Dated 09/11/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S): ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT NO.2 ---------------------------------------- V.S. MURALEEDHARAN, S/O. SHANKARA NARAYANA MENON, MURALIKA, MAMBATTA LANE, PUTHENKULANGARA, EROOR NORTH. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MUHAMMED RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & IST RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------ 1. M.M. PRABHAKARAN, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.H. DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KOCHI - 16. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALA BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADD.R3 IMPLEADED : 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT (IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT. 30.11.2009 IN THE COMMON ORDER ALONG WITH WPC 15878/09) THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- W.A. No.2694 of 2009 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 6th January, 2010. J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The second respondent in the writ petition is the appellant. He was the petitioner in W.P.(C)15878/09, in which he challenged the award of certain contract works by the Kerala Water Authority. The present writ petition, from which the Writ Appeal arises, was filed by the first respondent. The said respondent was apprehending suspension from service, as a vigilance case has been registered against him. So, he approached this court seeking appropriate reliefs against the apprehended suspension. The Water Authority submitted before this court that as on the date of hearing of the writ petition, no decision has been taken by the Water Authority to place the first respondent/writ petitioner under suspension. Recording that submission, the writ petition was closed. Challenging that judgment, this writ appeal is preferred. 2. We find that, by the judgment under appeal, none WA NO.2694/09 2 of the legal rights or legally protected interests of the appellant is affected. Therefore, the appellant has no locus standi to file this writ appeal. Accordingly, it is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE. tgs K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- W.A. No.2694 of 2009 ---------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T Dated 6th January, 2010.