IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 34824 of 2010(C) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- MEERANKUNJU.A.M, AGED 43, S/O. MOHAMMED, ALANGAJI HOUSE, M/S. CHAITHANYA PLYWOOD, KANDAMTHARA, ALLAPPARA.P.O, PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADV. SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, (REVENUE DEPARTMENT) SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA - 686 661. 3. THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, VENGOLA VILLAGE, VENGOLA - 683 554. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VENGOLA - 683 554. 5. FAISAL, AGED 31, S/O. HYDROSE, PATTARUMADAM HOUSE, ALLAPRA.P.O, VENGOLA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM - 683 553. 6. SHAKEELA, AGED 43, W/O. LATE MUHAMMED KUNJU, PATTARUMADAM HOUSE, ALLAPRA.P.O, VENGOLA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM - 683 553. W.P.(C). NO.34824/2010-C: 7. T.E. ABUBACKER, S/O. EBRAHIM, THENNAILIKUDI, ALLAPRA.P.O, VENGOLA VILLAGE - 685 553. 8. A.K. SHAJI, AGED 45, S/O. KOCHUMAKKAR, ALANGADAN HOUSE, ALLAPRA.P.O, PERUMBAVOOR - 683 553. 9. MUHAMMED KUNJU, S/O. HYDROSE, PATTARUMADAM HOUSE, ALLAPRA.P.O, VENGOLA VILLAGE - 683 553. R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 34824 of 2010 C ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 26th day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T According to the petitioner, when respondents 5 to 9 made Ext.P8 complaint against him before the second respondent, he filed Ext.P9 objection. It is apprehending that the second respondent will pass orders on Ext.P8 without considering Ext.P9 objection, seeking direction for its consideration, this writ petition is filed. 2. If as stated by the petitioner, Ext.P8 complaint has been entertained by the second respondent and he has filed Ext.P9 objection, the objection is liable to be considered and as at present, I have no reason to think that the second respondent will proceed with the matter without examining the objection. Therefore, I see no reason to issue any positive direction at this stage. Writ petition is closed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks