P.K.Kannanunni vs Commissioner
2021 Latest Caselaw 569 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

    THURSDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 17TH POUSHA, 1942

                        WP(C).No.205 OF 2021(A)


PETITIONER:

               P.K.KANNANUNNI
               AGED 50 YEARS
               S/O.V.BALACHANDRAN NAIR,INSPECTOR GRADE-I,HR
               ANDCE(ADM)DEPARTMENT,PALAKKAD,RESIDING AT
               SRINIKETH,KIZHAKKENCHERRY,PALAKKAD-678684.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN
               SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN
               SRI.SABU GEORGE
               SRI.MANU VYASAN PETER

RESPONDENTS:

      1        COMMISSIONER
               HR AND CE(ADM)DEPARTMENT,HOUSEFED
               COMPLEX,ERANHIPALAM.P.O, KOZHIKODE-673006.

      2        N.GIRISH,
               AGE AND NAME OF THE FATHER NOT KNOWN TO THE
               PETITIONER,INSEPCTOR GRADE-I,HR ABND
               CE(ADM)DEPARTMENT,NEAR THIRUVANGAD TEMPLE,
               THALASSERY-670103.



               SC,MDB- SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.205 OF 2021(A)

                                         2




                                   JUDGMENT

Dated this the 7th day of January 2021

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

"i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P1 to the extent it transfers the petitioner to Thalassery division and respondent No.2 to Palakkad division.

ii) issue a writ of mandamus or order or direction in the nature thereof directing respondent No.1 to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court."

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner

that the petitioner has been transferred out from Palakkad division

to Thalassery without any administrative exigencies informing

such transfer and without any request being made by the 2 nd

respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits

that the transfer at this stage is not required and that the

petitioner has approached the 1st respondent preferring Ext.P2 WP(C).No.205 OF 2021(A)

representation. It is submitted that Ext.P3 request has also been

forwarded by the petitioner's father, who is an Ex-service man.

4. In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that

the complaint raised by the petitioner against the transfer is liable

to be considered by the 1st respondent in accordance with law.

There will, accordingly, be a direction to the 1 st respondent to

take up, consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 representation

preferred by the petitioner, taking note of Ext.P3 as well. Orders

shall be passed within a period of three weeks from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall also be put

on notice and heard through any appropriate means including by

video conferencing.

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE SVP WP(C).No.205 OF 2021(A)

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.J1/2484/2017/M.D.B(3)DATED 31.12.2020 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 01.01.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.1.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 01.01.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE FATHER OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.1.