IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K.DENESAN MONDAY, THE 19TH FEBRUARY 2007 / 30TH MAGHA 1928 WP(C).No. 3347 of 2007(W) ------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------------- 1. RAKESH.T.M., THAIPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.METHALA, KODUNGALLOOR. 2. B.SC. AQUACULTURE GRADUATES ASSOCIATION M.E.S.ASMABI COLLEGE, KODUNGALLUR, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, AHILAMOLE.M.A. BY ADV. SMT.S.KARTHIKA SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI SMT.T.B.REMANI SRI.M.R.ANISON SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.T.R.RAJESH RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVT.SECRETRIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FISHERES, GOVT.SECRETRIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 3. KERALA STATE CO-OPERATION FEDERATION FOR FISHERES DEVELOPMENT LTD, (MATSYAFED), MATSYA BHAVAN, KURAVANKONAM, P.B.NO.821, KOWDIYAR, TROIVANDRUM-695 603. REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 4. THE DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, TRIVANDRUM. ..............2/- -: 2 :- 5. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM. R1 & 2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN. R3 & 4 BY ADV. SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN (SR.) SC,MATSYAFED SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN R5 BY SHRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, PSC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/02/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.K.DENESAN, J. ========================= WP(C).No.3347 OF 2007-W. ========================= Dated this the 19th day of February, 2007. J U D G M E N T The 1st petitioner is a Science Graduate in Aquaculture and the 2nd petitioner is an Association of B.Sc. Aquaculture Graduates. Ext.P6 representation filed by them before the Director of Fisheries (respondent No.4) is pending consideration. For the purpose of taking appropriate decision on Ext.P6, the 4th respondent has called for the syllabus from various other Universities. The Govt. Pleader submits that the matter is being seriously looked into by the 4th respondent and a decision will be taken without delay. 2. Counsel for the petitioners submits that Ext.P6 was filed in July, 2005 and considering the loss the petitioners may have to suffer if decision on Ext.P6 is inordinately delayed, this Court may fix a time limit for the 4th respondent to pass final orders on Ext.P6. 3. Counsel appearing for the 5th respondent P.S.C. submits that a proper decision can be taken on Ext.P6 only at the Government level and that the 4th respondent can play the role of making suggestions or recommendations to the Government for taking proper decision on Ext.P6. I think WP(C).No.3347 of 2007. 2 the above submission merits consideration. 4. In the above circumstances, I am inclined to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: (i) The 4th respondent shall, after verification of the records in his possession, offer his remarks on the request made by the petitioners and shall prepare a report to be submitted before the 2nd respondent. Along with that report, Ext.P6 representation shall be forwarded to the 2nd respondent. This shall be done within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (ii) On receipt of Ext.P6 with the remarks/report of the 4th respondent, the 2nd respondent shall consider the same and take decision in accordance with law, within two months thereafter. 5. The petitioners shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 2nd respondent. It is open to them to serve one more copy to the 2nd respondent so that immediate steps can be taken by the 2nd respondent for disposing of Ext.P6. K.K.DENESAN, JUDGE. kvs/-