IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2008 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 4249 of 2005(S) ------------------------- OA.221/2004 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER: RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5 IN THE O.A. ------------------------------------------ 1. UNION OF INDIA REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING,NEW DELHI. 2. PRASAR BHARATI (BROADCASTING CORPORATION OF INDIA), NEW NELHI REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. 3. DIRECTORATE GENERAL PRASAR BHARATI, (BROADCASTING CORPORATION OF INDIA), DOORDARSHAN,NEW DELHI. 4. THE DIRECTOR,DOORDARSHAN KENDRA, KUDAPPANAKUNNU,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SC, DOORDARSHAN RESPONDENTS: APPLICANT ---------------------- 1. SIVAKUMAR,FILM/VIDEO EDITOR, DOORDARSHAN KENDRA,KUDAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SRI.PEER MOHAMMED,DIRECTOR DOORDARSHAN, KERALA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY G.P. SMT. SMITHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION IN OS NO. 221/04 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 20.3.2004 EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS DATED 2.4.2004 EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE APPLICANT DATED 12.4.2004 EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ADDL. REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 25.6.2004 EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA NO.221 OF 2004 DATED 15.7.2004 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. -------------------------------------------- W.P. C. No. 4249 OF 2005 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT C.N. Ramachandran Nair,J. W.P. is filed against the order the Tribunal cancelling the transfer given to the respondent. Since there was no stay transfer did not take effect and respondent was allowed to continue. There is no scope for considering the validity of order of the Tribunal now after expiry of nearly four years. W.P. is accordingly closed leaving freedom to the petitioners to effect transfer in accordance with current norms and policies. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. kk 2