IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 1ST AUGUST 2011 / 10TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 20904 of 2011(K) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- LONAPPAN, AGED 78, S/O. ITTIERA, CHIRAYATH HOUSE, CHELAKODE, TALAPPILLY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT., FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.PIN-695 001 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR.PIN-680 001 3. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, THRISSUR.PIN-680 001 4. THE TALUK SUPPLY OFFICER, TALAPPILLY TALUK OFFICE, THRISSUR, WADAKKANCHERY.PIN-680 635 R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. RAJASREE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.20904/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER DATED 23/10/2010. P2 COPY OF THE MAHASSOR PREPARED BY THE SUPPLY OFFICER DATED 3/11/2010. P3 COPY OF THE CHARGE MEMO ON 12/2/2011. P4 COPY OF THE REPLY OF THE PETITIONER TO THE CHARGE MEMO DATED 22/2/2011. P5 COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN OS NO.185/06 DATED 13/2/09 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, WADAKKANCHERY. P6 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT OF THE HOLDERS BEFORE THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER DATED NIL. P7 COPY OF THE HEARING NOTICE DATED 05/3/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts ANTONY DOMINIC, J --------------------------------------- W.P(C) No.20904 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of August, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner submits that he was a licensee of ARD No.197 of Talappilly Taluk. The licence was suspended by Ext.P1. Subsequently, Ext.P3 memo of charges was also issued. The petitioner filed his explanation. According to the petitioner by Ext.P7 notice of hearing was issued and parties were heard by the 3rd respondent. The case of the petitioner is that although hearing was conducted on 16.3.2011 proceedings are not finalised so far. It is complaining of the above, the writ petition is filed. 2. If as stated by the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P7 parties have been heard and only order is to be passed, there is no reason why there is delay in finalising the proceedings. 3. In that view of the matter, I direct the 3rd respondent to finalise the proceedings initiated against the petitioner by Exts.P1 and P3 referred to above. W.P(C) No.20904 of 2011 2 4. This the 3rd respondent shall do as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within six weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition. The Writ Petition is disposed of. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE ab W.P(C) No.20904 of 2011 3