IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 27TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 8TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 6360 of 2009(L) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.K.AFSAL, S/O.KOYAN AGED 35 YEARS RESIDING AT VALOMKOTTIL VEEDU, WEST VENGOLA P.O.PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.PAVITHRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER,ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE COMMISSIONR OF CIVIL SUPPLIES THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. T.Y.KURIAKO,THANNIKKOTTIL HOUSE PAZHAMTHOTTAM P.O.,KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------- W.P.(C).No. 6360 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 27th day of February, 2009. JUDGMENT Petitioner was appointed as ARD No.55 in Kunnathunadu Taluk . That was ordered to be cancelled by Ext.P1 order and re-notification was directed to be done. The revision filed by the petitioner was rejected by the District Collector as per Ext.P3. 2. Aggrieved by Ext.P3 petitioner filed Ext.P4 revision accompanied by Ext.P5 stay petition before the 4th respondent. Thereafter he fled a writ petition before this court as WP(c).No.2805/09. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P6 judgment directing that status quo will be maintained for 4 weeks and that in the meanwhile it will be open to the petitioner to move the 4th respondent seeking orders on Ext.P5 stay petition. WP(c).No.6360/09 2 3. Petitioner submits that in pursuance to Ext.P6 judgment, under the cover of Ext.P7, the judgment was produced before the 4th respondent and he sought early orders on the stay petition. It is stated that due to nonavailability of files, the stay petition was not considered and in the meanwhile the status quo ordered by this court court Ext.P6 judgment is expiring. 4. As already noticed, Ext.P7 shows that the petitioner approached the 4th respondent to have the stay Petition heard. However, the matter could not be heard and in the meanwhile the status quo granted by this court is expiring. Taking into account this situation, I dispose of this writ petition directing that the 4th respondent shall within 4 weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment, hear and pass orders on Ext.P5 stay petition filed by the petitioner along with Ext.P4 revision. It is directed that until orders are passed on Ext.P5 stay petition the status quo ordered by this court in Ext.P6 will continue. WP(c).No.6360/09 3 Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before the 4th respondent for compliance. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.6360/09 4