IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2009 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 34442 of 2009(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- MARTIN P. VINCENT, VILLAGEMAN, KOOTTIKKAL VILLAGE OFFICE, KANHIRAPALLY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DT. BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR LAND REVENUE, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 33. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. 4. T.M.ABRAHAM, VILLAGEMAN, TALUK OFFICE, MEENACHIL, KOTTAYAM DT. 5. V.P.SAJIMON, VILLAGEMAN, TALUK OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. GOVT.PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 34442 OF 2009 (A) ===================== Dated this the 1st day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T The grievance of the petitioner is essentially about Ext.P5, by which the 3rd respondent ordered promotion of respondents 4 and 5 as LDC/Village Assistant. According to the petitioner, the 3rd respondent is incompetent to issue such an order. It is seen that the petitioner has already raised his contentions in Ext.P6, which is stated to have been filed before the 2nd respondent. Having regard to the pendency of the said complaint, I feel it appropriate that the 2nd respondent should examine the contentions raised by the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6 referred to above. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 6 weeks of receipt of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp