Loading...

A.Rajendra Panicker vs Kerala Lok Ayukta Represented By … on 18 February, 2010

Kerala High Court
A.Rajendra Panicker vs Kerala Lok Ayukta Represented By … on 18 February, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 3616 of 2010(B)


1. A.RAJENDRA PANICKER, GENERAL MANAGER
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. KERALA LOK AYUKTA REPRESENTED BY ITS
                       ...       Respondent

2. M.VENUGOPALAN ASSARI, PRESIDENT,

3. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,

4. C.K.KRISHNANKUTTY, CHAIRMAN, KERALA

5. LT.CO.(RTD.) K.G.RAMACHANDRAN,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.NARENDRAN NAIR

                For Respondent  :SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :18/02/2010

 O R D E R
                      ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
             --------------------------------------------------
                 W.P.(C) NO.3616 OF 2010 (B)
             --------------------------------------------------
          Dated this the 18th day of February, 2010

                          J U D G M E N T

Heard. Counsel entered appearance for R2. Notice to R1,R3,R4

and R5 dispensed with.

2. Challenge in the writ petition is against Exts.P4 and P6

orders passed by the Ist respondent.

3. Ext.P4 is an order passed by the first respondent in

I.A.No.695/2009 in complaint No.1589/2009 restraining the

petitioner herein from taking administrative decision including on

policy matters in the Kerala State Warehousing Corporation where

he has been appointed as Managing Director in charge.

Subsequently seeking to have the said order vacated, petitioner

filed an application along with his counter. Matter was heard and

Lok Ayukta passed Ext.P6 order declining to vacate the interim

order but however clarifying the same, that it will be open to the

first respondent to take decisions, depending upon the exigencies

and on important situations and with the permission of the Ist

WPC.No. 3616/2010
:2 :

respondent.

4. I heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner and the

learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent, the complainant

before the Lok Ayukta.

5. Although the petitioner canvassed for the invalidity of the

aforesaid orders and counsel for the 2nd respondent canvased to

sustain the same, having regard to the fact that an order in the

nature of Exts.P4 and P6 if allowed to operate will have the effect of

virtually stalling every activity in the Kerala State Warehousing

Corporation and the functioning of the petitioner as its Managing

Director in charge and such orders should not have been passed at

an interlocutory stage. Therefore, I am not in a position to sustain

these orders. Accordingly these orders are quashed. However, this

judgment quashing the aforesaid orders will have no impact in the

final adjudication of the complaint made by the 2nd respondent.

Writ Petition is therefore disposed of quashing Exts.P4 and P6,

however directing the first respondent to expedite disposal of

Ext.P2 complaint filed by the 2nd respondent untrammeled by this

judgment.

(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/

WPC.No. 3616/2010
:3 :

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information