IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 29TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 4044 of 2010(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- B.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, S/O.SRI.G.BALAKRISHNAN PILLAI,RESIDING AT GAYATHRI, STANDARD JUNCTION, CHATHANNOOR P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SRI.B.BIPIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF KOLLAM. 2. THE CHARGE OFFICER, ERAVIPURAM ZONAL OFFICE, CORPORATION OF KOLLAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR, LOCAL FUND AUDIT OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, LOCAL FUND AUDIT OFFICE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI. M.K. CHANDRAMOHAN DAS -R1 AND R2 GOVT. PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN -R3 AND R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 4044 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT When the matter came up for admission, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the Writ Petition with liberty to pursue the remedy available to the petitioner under the Kerala Local Fund Audit Act, 1994. 2. The petitioner apprehends that on account of the delay in challenging the impugned order, the remedy available to him under the Kerala Local Fund Audit Act may not be entertained. The pleadings in the Writ Petition would reveal that the petitioner had approached the District Court, Kollam earlier by filing C.M.A. No.258 of 2002. Thereafter, he had filed I.A. No.857 of 2006 in that appeal, but the appeal was dismissed as not pressed, as per Ext.P3. In the light of the permission sought for by the petitioner to withdraw the Writ Petition, I am not going into the merits of the case. The petitioner is at liberty to explain the delay that occurred in the matter and file a petition before the District W.P.(C)NO. 4044/2010 2 Court, Kollam for condonation of delay. There is no reason to believe that even if such a petition is filed, the same would not be considered in accordance with law after taking into account the sustainability of the explanation offered by the petitioner. Subject to the above observation, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to pursue the remedy available to him under the Kerala Local Fund Audit Act, 1994. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) sp/ W.P.(C)NO. 4044/2010 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C) NO. 4044/2010 JUDGMENT 18th February, 2010 W.P.(C)NO. 4044/2010 4