IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2009 / 25TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 19943 of 2009(K) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- R.GOPAKUMAR,TREASURER, KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (INTUC-I), REGISTER NO.122/66,ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. MR.D.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, HEAD OFFICE,WAREHOUSING CORPORATION ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 3. RAJENDRA PANIKER,GENERAL MANAGER (CONSTRUCTION), THE KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,HEAD OFFICE,WAREHOUSING CORPORATION ROAD,ERNAKULAM. R1 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN. R2 by ADV. MR.MAJNU KOMATH, SC, K.S.W.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P.(C) No. 19943 of 2009 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 16th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioner who is the Treasurer of the Kerala State Warehousing Corporation Employees Association (INTUC) has filed this writ petition to prevent the appointment of the third respondent as Managing Director of the Kerala State Warehousing Corporation Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the “Corporation” for short. The petitioner contends that the third respondent who has faced disciplinary action on 13 occasions and has also been punished is not a person suitable for appointment as Managing Director of the Corporation. 2. The appointment of Managing Director of the Corporation has to be made by the State Government in consultation with the Central Warehousing Corporation. Presently, the third respondent is not the Managing Director of the Corporation. The petitioner’s apprehension appears to be that the present Managing Director will be removed and the third respondent will be appointed in his place. In my opinion, this writ petition is premature. If, as apprehended by the petitioner, the third respondent is appointed as Chairman of the Corporation, the petitioner can challenge the appointment at that stage, if grounds exist. W.P.(C) No. 19943/09 2 This writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge the third respondent’s appointment as Managing Director of the Corporation if made in future. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. mn.