IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU TUESDAY, THE 5TH DECEMBER 2006 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA 1928 WP(C).No. 32244 of 2006(S) -------------------------- OA.471/2006 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER: ------------ 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS(PREVENTIVE), CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, I.S.PRESS ROAD, COCHIN-18. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, I.S.PRESS ROAD, COCHIN-18. 3. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, I.S. PRESS ROAD, COCHIN-18. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CUSTOMS PREVENTIVE DIVISION, CENTRAL EXCISE BHAVAN, COCHIN - 17. 5. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN VARGHESE, ASSISTANT SG RESPONDENTS: ------------- K.P.MADHUSOODANAN, SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS PREVENTIVE UNIT (NARCOTICS), TRIVANDRUM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/12/2006, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR & K.R. UDAYABHANU, JJ. =============================== W.P.C.NO.32244 OF 2006 =============================== DATED THIS THE 5th DAY OF DECEMBER 2006 JUDGMENT Abdul Gafoor,J. The challenge is against Ext.P6 order of the Central Administrative Tribunal passed in O.A.No.471 of 2006 filed by the first respondent who complained against his transfer. The ultimate paragraph in Ext.P6 reveals as follows: “6.In view of the above, the OA is disposed of with the suggestion to the respondent No.3 to consider the case of the applicant and communicate the decision to the applicant. It is made clear that it is purely left to the respondent No.3 to arrive at the decision, keeping in view the administrative exigency and the guidelines as mentioned above and till then, the applicant be not disturbed from the existing place of work. No costs.” WPC.32244/2006 -2- In the nature of this direction given, we are not satisfied that any interference is required in this writ petition. The Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- K.A.ABDUL GAFOOR JUDGE Sd/- K.R.UDAYABHANU, JUDGE ks. TRUE COPY P.S.TO JUDGE