IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST, 2008/4TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 25697 of 2008(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ M.VASUDEVAN, S/O. LATE KESAVANUNNI NAIR, MECHERY HOUSE, KOLAZHY P.O., TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TRICHUR. 3. DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER, TRICHUR. 4. K.R. JOSHI, KALAPPURAKKAL HOUSE, LOKAMALLESWARAM, KODUNGALLOOR. 5. P.K.MUKUNDAN, PANIKKAVEETTIL HOUSE, CHAMAKKALA ROAD CHENTHRAPPINI. 6. JOHN P.J., PELLISERY HOUSE, KODUNGALLUR. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 25697 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 26th August, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioner claims to be an applicant for AWD. According to the petitioner, pursuant to the notification inviting applications, the petitioner went to the office of the 2nd respondent for submission of application on the last date for submitting application, viz. 27-3-2006. The petitioner alleges that the 2nd respondent did not accept the application on the ground that there is an order of stay from this Court dated 24-3-2006 against further processing of the applications for granting AWD for the particular place. The petitioner submits that another petitioner also came before this Court with the same allegations by filing W.P(C) No. 14620/2008, in which, this Court had given the petitioner in that writ petition the indulgence of permitting him to be present before the 3rd respondent for interview with the relevant documents stated to have been in his possession as on 26-3- 2006. The petitioner seeks the very same indulgence in his case also. 2. This is stoutly opposed by the learned Government Pleader who would submit that this is only a ruse to protract the matter further. Learned Government Pleader points out that in the other writ petition also, the petitioner therein came with a false claim that his application was refused to be accepted when tendered, which was ultimately disbelieved by this Court. He points out that the petitioner herein did not care to approach this Court, within any reasonable time even when he was aware of the other proceedings before this Court . The learned Government Pleader would therefore submit that the petitioner is not entitled to any indulgence in the matter. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. In order to give relief to the petitioner in this writ petition, I must come to the conclusion that the petitioner had in fact tendered the application on the last date fixed for submission of applications, W.P.C. No. 25697/2008. -: 2 :- viz. 27-3-2006. There is absolutely no material provided by the petitioner for me to arrive at a conclusion in his favour. Further, all along the petitioner was aware of the proceedings before this Court . The petitioner did not find it necessary to approach this Court along with the petitioner in the other writ petition. In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [True copy] P.S to Judge.