IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2010 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 6744 of 2010(P) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- GEORGE VINCENT CONCISSO, HOUSE NO.9/233/A, THUNDATHUMKADAVU, VARAPPUZHA. BY ADVS. SRI.DEEPU THANKAN, SMT.G.RANJITA. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR (RR), NORTH PARAVUR. 2. THE DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KERALA MOTOR TRANSPORT WORKERS WELFARE FUND BOARD, ERNAKULAM. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN, R2 BY SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- W.P(C) No.6744 of 2010-P ---------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T The recovery proceedings pursued by the respondents in respect of the amount due from the petitioner, pertaining to the stage carriage bearing No.KRE 702, (which was replaced with KL 7- 1742), are under challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was never served with the orders passed by the appellate authority ie. Government, before whom necessary appeals were filed challenging the final determination orders passed by the second respondent. 3. The second respondent has filed a statement referring to the sequence of events and also producing copies of the relevant documents as Exts.R2(a) to R2(f), which shows that the appeals preferred by the petitioner before the Government have been finalised [as borne by Exts.R2(b) and R2(e)], which were passed on 1.4.2005 and 10.1.2005 respectively. After admittedly participating in the hearing held before the Government whether the final orders passed by the Government, as borne by Exts.R2(b) and R2(e) were W.P(C) No.6744 of 2010-P 2 actually served upon the petitioner or not is a matter required to be considered on the basis of the instructions to be obtained from the Government, who is not a party before this Court, in the present Writ Petition. 4. In the above circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks for permission to withdraw the Writ Petition, with liberty to challenge the impugned proceedings ie Ext.R2(b) and R2 (e). Accordingly, permission is granted. The Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. It is made clear that this Court has not decided anything on merits, as to the contentions raised from the part of the petitioner and as to the alleged non service of the final orders passed by the Government. The issue is left open, so as to enable the petitioner to pursue the matter in accordance with law. So as to enable the petitioner to pursue such exercise, the 'status- quo' ordered by this Court on 3.3.2010 and extended on 19.3.2010 will stand extended till expiry of a further period of ten days, from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE //True Copy// ab