IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 22102 of 2008(F)
1. PRAKASH E.K.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. THE CHAIRMAN, SCRUTINY COMMITTEE FOR
3. DIRECTOR, KERALA INSTITUTE FOR
4. VIGILANCE OFFICER, VIGILANCE CELL,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR
For Respondent :SMT.N.SANTHA
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :11/06/2009
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
-------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.22102 of 2008
--------------------------------------
Dated 11th June, 2009
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.P.Gopalakrishnan Nair, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, Sri.P.Santhosh Kumar, the learned
Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and
Sri.K.A.Balan, the learned counsel appearing for the additional fifth
respondent.
2. In this writ petition, the petitioner who is presently
working as Director of Treasuries challenges Ext.P12 letter dated
19.6.2006 sent by the Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee for
Verification of Community Certificates to the Director of KIRTADS
requesting him to conduct a detailed enquiry into the caste status of
the petitioner and to furnish a report to the Scrutiny Committee within
three months. He also challenges Exts.P11 and P13 notices dated
5.4.2008 and 1.7.2008 respectively issued by the Vigilance Cell of
KIRTADS requesting him to appear for a personal hearing in
connection with the enquiry being conducted by the KIRTADS.
3. Sri.P.Santhosh Kumar, the learned Government Pleader
appearing for respondents 1 to 4 submits that a decision has been
taken to withdraw the notices impugned in this writ petition without
WP(C).No.22102/2008 2
prejudice to the right of the State Government to act as directed by
this Court in paragraph 17 of Ext.P10 judgment. In my opinion, in
view of the stand taken by the State Government, this writ petition has
become infructuous. It is accordingly closed as infructuous without
prejudice to the contentions on both sides and without prejudice to the
right of the Government if they are so advised to act as directed by
this Court in paragraph 17 of Ext.P10 judgment. Needless to say if the
Government initiates any such action, it will be open to the petitioner
to defend the same by raising all available contentions. It is clarified
that the fifth respondent will have no right to participate in the
proceedings if any initiated by the Government.
P.N.RAVINDRAN
Judge
TKS