IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 26TH JULY 2010 / 4TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 23205 of 2010(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.RADHAKRISHNAN, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.(LATE) N.E.VISHNU NAMBOOTHIRI, SUYOG, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-24. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER (UNDER SUSPENSION), TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT. BY ADV. SRI.K.D.BABU SRI.K.N.PADMAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 2. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. MR.ARAVIND KUMAR BABU, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------ WP(C) No.23205 of 2010 (A) -------------------------- Dated, this the 26th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner was working as Regional Transport Officer, Ernakulam. While so, he was placed under suspension as per Ext.P1 order dated 26/11/2009 passed by the 1st respondent. By filing Ext.P10 he sought revocation of the suspension. The petitioner also relies on Ext.P9, where according to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent has recommended his case for revocation of the suspension. Having regard to the fact that Ext.P1 order of suspension was issued by the 1st respondent, before whom Ext.P10 representation is pending, I direct the 1st respondent to pass orders on Ext.P10 representation duly adverting to Ext.P9 recommendation of the 2nd respondent also. Orders on Ext.P10 shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg