IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2008 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 13683 of 2008(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ V.P.UNNIKRISHNAN, AGED 43 YEARS, KAZHAKAM, NANGATTIRI BHAGAVATHY KSHETHRAM, NANGATTIRI PISHARAM, P.O.NANGATTIRI, PALGHAT DIST. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. COMMISSIONER, HR & CE (ADMN.), CALICUT. 2. EXECUTIVE OFFICER, SREE NANGATTIRI BHAGAVATHY KSHETHRAM, P.O.NANGATTIRI. 3. N.P.SEKHARA PISHARADI, GURUMANDIRAM, ULLANNUR, P.O.TRITHALA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. ADDL.R4. 4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, (HR & CE) DEPARTMENT, KOZHIKODE. (ADDL.R4 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 22.5.2008 ON I.A.NO.5821/08) BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.M.R.SREELATHA FOR R1 & R4 ADV.SHRI MOHAN C.MENON FOR R2 ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH FOR R3 SRI.V.C.MADHAVANKUTTY FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.13683 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MAY, 2008 J U D G M E N T I heard learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Ramesh Chander, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent Shri Mohan C.Menon, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent Shri Santheep Ankarath and the learned Government Pleader. Though the challenge in the writ petition is essentially against Exhibit P9, Shri Ramesh Chander submits that the petitioner has subsequently preferred a statutory appeal against Exhibit P9 before the Deputy Commissioner, the additional 4th respondent. The same has been produced along with I.A.No.5822/08 and marked as Exhibit P10. He submits that pendency of the writ petition deters the appellate authority from considering Exhibit P10. The 3rd respondent submits that he has already filed an application in Exhibit P10 to get himself impleaded. Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has no objection to the 3rd respondent being impleaded in the statutory appeal. The submission is recorded. 2. It is neither proper nor necessary for this Court to W.P.(C)No.13683/08 -2- express any opinion on the merits of the contentions in the appeal. 3. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the additional 4th respondent to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P10 after hearing the petitioner and the respondents. This shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the question of maintainability is raised before the appellate authority, the same shall also be considered by the said authority. The objections as regards Exhibits P8 and P9 have not been considered in the writ petition and the contentions of the petitioner as also the contesting respondents in relation to the same are left open. V.GIRI, JUDGE. dsn