IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 18TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 29TH MAGHA 1929 WA.No. 416 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN OP.5183/2003 Dated 06/02/2008 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ----------- T.A.GANGADHARAN SUB-ENGINEER, ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT THRISSUR CORPORATION, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THRISSUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY THRISSUR-1 3. P.G.ANILKUMAR SUB-ENGINEER ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT THRISSUR CORPORATION, THRISSUR-1. BY SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR) SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS GOVT. PLEADER SRI.K.SANDESH RAJA. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.A. NO. 416 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------- Dated 18th February, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioner is the appellant. This appeal is filed, challenging Annexure-A4 order passed by the learned single Judge, directing the 1st respondent to file an affidavit, explaining why the direction issued by the Division Bench of this Court in Annexure-A2 has not been implemented. It was also ordered that if the said direction is not so far implemented, the same shall be implemented and the time limit within which it will be implemented, shall also be indicated in the affidavit. According to the appellant, the direction of the Division Bench has already been implemented, as evident from Ext.R2(b) order. Therefore, the direction to the 1st respondent to implement the direction of the Division Bench, if so far it is not implemented within a time frame, is unjustified, it is submitted. 2. The learned Government Pleader brought to our notice an affidavit filed by the 1st respondent before the learned single Judge on 14.2.2008, WA 416/2008 2 stating that the direction of the Division Bench has been implemented only partially. 3. We notice that the order impugned is only an interim order and the same does not affect any of the rights of the appellant. If the direction of the Division Bench has already been implemented, the appellant can bring it to the notice of the learned single Judge at the time of hearing of the writ petition. Going by the principles laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in K.S.Das v. State of Kerala [1992(2) KLT 358 (FB)], we are of the view that the order impugned is not an order appealable under Section 5(i) of the High Court Act. In the result, the Writ Appeal is dismissed without prejudice to the contentions of the appellant and his right to raise all these contentions before the learned single Judge when the writ petition is heard. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. Nm/