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 :
