IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 9625 of 2010(C)
1. SUDHAKARA PANICKER,S/O.NANU,AGED 56 YRS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
... Respondent
2. RAJAN,PALLIKKAVADAKKETHIL,CHENNITHALA,
3. THANKACHAN,ALAPPAT THARAYIL,CHENNITHALA,
4. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,
For Petitioner :SRI.SURAJ.S
For Respondent :SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN, SC, K.S.E.B
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :07/04/2010
O R D E R
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
..............................................................................
W.P.(C) No. 9625 OF 2010
.........................................................................
Dated this the 7th April , 2010
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.
P3 order passed by the 4th respondent, which, according to the
petitioner, is not in conformity with the actual facts and figures.
Many a ground has been raised in the Writ Petition, in support of
the case.
2. Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
respondent Board, as well as the learned Government Pleader
appearing for the 4th respondent. The wife of the second
respondent has sought to get herself impleaded as Additional 5th
respondent by filing I.A.No.5089 of 2010 and the learned
Counsel appearing for the additional respondent has also been
heard, on allowing the same.
3. The parties before this Court conceded that the
matter could be caused to be reconsidered by the 4th respondent
W.P.(C) No. 9625 OF 2010
2
after setting aside Ext.P3 order and after giving an opportunity
of hearing to all concerned. It is also brought to the notice of
this Court that the third respondent had not appeared before
the 4th respondent nor had he filed any statement of objection
before passing Ext. P3.
4. In the said circumstance, taking note of the above
submissions, this Court finds it fit and proper to have the
matter re-considered . Accordingly, Ext. P3 is set aside and
the 4th respondent is directed to consider the matter afresh and
pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, after giving an
opportunity of hearing to all concerned. The matter shall be
finalised as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one
month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
The Writ Petition is disposed of.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,
JUDGE.
lk