IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 28TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 5147 of 2010(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUNIL.S. S/O. C.SADANANDAN, AGED 42 YEARS, ACCOUNTANT(UNDER SUSPENSION), THVANNUR GRMA PANCHAYATH (RESIDING AT MARUTHA MANDIRAM, ERUNNOOTTIL, P.O.VATTATHAMAR, KADAKKAL-KOLLAM DISTRICT-691536). BY ADVS. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT SECTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT SECTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT SECTION, KALLARA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. THE SECRETARY, KALLARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN -R1 TO R5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 5147 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is presently working as Accountant in Thavannur Grama Panchayat, Malappuram District. As per Ext.P1 order dated 7.1.2010, he was placed under suspension in connection with the grant of tender to one Ramakrishna Pillai for construction of the office building of Kallara Grama Panchayat. The specific grounds on which the petitioner assail Ext.P1 are grounds (e) and (f) in the Writ Petition, which read thus: “(e) It is submitted that while the decision No.1 (2) of Kallara Grama Panchayath dated 31-10-2008, granting prayer of Sri. Ramakrishna Pillai for market value of the cement and steel was taken, petitioner had no role over the process of decision. (f) It is the committee which approved the tender. It is for the Committee to decide whether a negotiation is required or not. Petitioner had no role in the said matter.” 2. Raising the said grounds, the petitioner has already approached W.P.(C) NO. 5147/2010 2 the Government by filing Ext.P8 Review Petition. Ext.P8 is a statutory Review Petition and, therefore, the first respondent is bound to consider the same. Hence, there will be a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P8 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of three weeks from today. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) sp/ W.P.(C) NO. 5147/2010 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C) NO. 5147/2010 JUDGMENT 17th February, 2010