IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 7TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 18TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 3809 of 2011(A) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- N.S.NISHA, OORANKUZHI HOUSE, MALAMURI, DAVIAPURAM P.O., NEDUMANGAD, TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SMT.S.KARTHIKA SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.M.R.ANISON SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001 2. B.SANTHOSH KUMAR, VADAKKEVILA VEEDU, PALALKONAM, ARAYANADU P.O., TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT - 695027. R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 3809 of 2011 A ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 7th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T Applications are invited for appointment of AWD No.T18 of Nanniyodu Grama Panchayat in Nedumangad Taluk. Petitioner, second respondent and certain other persons applied. The second respondent was selected. That was challenged before this Court in W.P.(C) No.15831/2006, which was allowed by Ext.P1 judgment. In Writ Appeal, the matter was remitted for reconsideration. 2. Based on the directions of the Division Bench, the matter was reconsidered and by order dated 23-04-2007, the second respondent was again appointed. That appointment was challenged in W.P.(C) Nos.14005/2007 and 13938/2007. These writ petitions are pending. This Court did not pass any order staying the appointment of the second respondent, as a result of which, he commenced the business. 3. After he commenced the business, certain W.P.(C) No.3809/2011 : 2 : irregularities were found and by Ext.P6 order dated 10-02- 2010, his dealership was terminated. Against that order, the second respondent filed an appeal, which was rejected by the Commissioner. He filed a revision before the Government and that revision was allowed by Ext.P7 order. 4. In this writ petition, petitioner challenges Ext.P7, contending that in view of the pendency of W.P.(C) Nos.14005/2007 and 13938/2007, parties to those writ petitions ought to have been heard before passing Ext.P7 order. 5. In my view, this contention has no substance for the reason that Ext.P7 originates from Ext.P2 order, whereby the dealership of the second respondent was terminated for certain irregularities. Against that order, he filed an appeal, which was rejected and it is thereafter he filed revision. In that controversy, petitioners in the aforesaid two writ petitions are unnecessary parties and, therefore, they have no locus standi to claim that they ought to have been heard. W.P.(C) No.3809/2011 : 3 : Therefore, I do not find any merit in the aforesaid contention raised by the senior counsel appearing for the petitioner. Writ petition fails and it is dismissed. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge