High Court Kerala High Court

Dr.P.N.Premachandran vs State Of Kerala on 29 October, 2009

Kerala High Court
Dr.P.N.Premachandran vs State Of Kerala on 29 October, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 30752 of 2009(L)


1. DR.P.N.PREMACHANDRAN, ADDITIONAL
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.P.DANDAPANI (SR.)

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :29/10/2009

 O R D E R
                      ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
             --------------------------------------------------
                W.P.(C) NO.30752 OF 2009 (L)
             --------------------------------------------------
           Dated this the 29th day of October, 2009

                          J U D G M E N T

Petitioner is the Additional Director & Head, Soil Survey

Department of Agriculture. He is placed under suspension by

Ext.P3 order dated 26.9.2009. Referring to Ext.P4 to P10

petitioner submits that the grounds mentioned in Ext.P3

suspension order are all unfounded. Be that as it may, petitioner

has moved the Minister for Agriculture by filing Ext.P12 describing

it as an appeal against Ext.P3 order of suspension.

2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has produced

before me a communication dated 21.10.2009 issued on behalf

of the Additional Chief Secretary(Finance) scheduling hearing on

Ext.P12 on 28.10.2009. From this communication it is evident that

though Ext.P12 is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture the

same has been acted upon as an appeal filed under Rule 22 of the

KCS(CC & A) Rules, 1960.

3. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner points

out that due to inconvenience of the appellate authority , the

appeal has not been heard and stands adjourned indefinitely.

WPC.No.30752 /09
:2 :

Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has invoked the

appellate remedy and that the appellate authority has acted

upon Ext.P12 under Rule 22 of the Rules referred to above, it is

necessary that the appellate authority should pass orders as

expeditiously as possible with notice to the petitioner within 3

weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment.

There will be a direction to that effect. Petitioner to produce a

copy of the judgment before the Appellate Authority for

compliance.

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/