IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 16TH BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 27665 of 2010(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- PAUL SEBASTIAN,PUTHUSSERY HOUSE, KUNNUKARA.P.O,NORTH PARAVUR,ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER SRI.FIROZ K.ROBIN RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES (BOARD OF REVENUE),CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM-682030. 4. THE DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, ERNAKULAM,PIN-682030. 5. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENGAMANAD POLICE STATION. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 27665 OF 2010 G() ===================== Dated this the 7th day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner was appointed as ARD No.167 of North Paravur. By Ext.P5 order of the 4th respondent, the dealership was cancelled. Petitioner filed an appeal before the 3rd respondent. According to the petitioner, though Ext.P8 appeal was considered by the 3rd respondent, it was the ADM who heard the parties pursuant to Ext.P10 notice. However, the 3rd respondent rejected the appeal by Ext.P12 order. Aggrieved by Ext.P12 order, he has filed Ext.P13 revision before the 2nd respondent. It is at that stage the writ petition has been filed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Ext.P12 order is illegal for the reason that the appeal filed by him was heard by the ADM and the appeal was disposed of by the 3rd respondent. Despite this contention, fact remains that the petitioner has already pursued the statutory remedy of revision by filing Ext.P13 before the 2nd respondent. Therefore, I do not think that it is necessary for this Court to examine the contentions atleast at the stage of the proceedings. WPC No. 27665/10 :2 : 3. Therefore, leaving it open to the petitioner to raise this contention also before the 2nd respondent, I dispose of this writ petition directing the 2nd respondent to dispose of Ext.P13 revision filed by the petitioner. This shall be done, at any rate within 8 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. It is directed that in the meanwhile, further proceedings for launching prosecution on the strength of Ext.P12 order passed by the 3rd respondent shall not be implemented. 4. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd and 3rd respondents for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp