IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 22ND MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 1454 of 2008(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- S.UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.K.M.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR, MANI BHAVAN, ULIYAKOVILM, KOLLAM 19, NOW WORKING AS LOWER DIVISION CLERK, WITH THE CHIEF ELECTRICAL INSPECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.G.RADHAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT., GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KOLLAM. 3. THE CHIEF ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, OFFICE OF THE ELECTRICAL INSPECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 1454 OF 2008 - W = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 11th February, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner seeks a direction requiring the 2nd and 3rd respondents to issue no objection certificate to the petitioner to renew Ext. P1 passport. It is stated that he is now working in the office of the 3rd respondent and that since the 2nd respondent has not issued a no objection certificate, the 3rd respondent has not recommended his case for issue of passport. 2. Petitioner submits that though he had worked in the office of the 2nd respondent for some time, there is no reason for declining NOC and going by the submissions made by the counsel, there was not even a disciplinary action that pending against him. 3. In view of the assertions that were made in this writ petition and also during the submissions in court, the remarks of the 2nd respondent were called for. It is stated in the remarks that a disciplinary enquiry was held against 4 employees including the petitioner and although the report is to the effect that the officers against whom charge was framed are not guilty, the matter is still W.P.(C) No. 1454 OF 2008 - 2 - pending consideration of the District Judge, Kollam. The report concludes by saying that it was because of the pendency of disciplinary action that the NOC was not issued. 4. The remarks thus made by the 2nd respondent proves the assertion of the petitioner to be wrong and if disciplinary action has not been finalised as yet, I cannot find fault with the 2nd respondent in declining the issue of NOC. 5. However, since the matter is pending consideration of the District Judge, Kollam since 29.11.2006, I dispose of this writ petition directing that it will be open to the petitioner to move the District Judge, Kollam for expediting a decision on the matter. It is also directed that depending upon the order to be passed by the District Judge, Kollam the 2nd respondent shall consider the request of the 3rd respondent for issue of NOC in order to enable the petitioner to renew Ext. P1 passport. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jan/-