MUHAMMED RAFI Vs. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 is filed by a landlord seeking a direction to the first respondent District Collector, Kottayam, to dispose of Ext.P7 appeal preferred by him against Ext.P6 order passed by the Accommodation Controller and also to grant stay of Ext.P6, as applied for in Ext.P7(a), till Ext.P7 is finally disposed of. When this writ petition came up for admission, Sri. V.T.K. Mohanan, learned senior Government Pleader, took notice on behalf of the Government and we asked whether Ext.P7 is ripe for hearing and if so when at the earliest the first respondent District Collector will be able to dispose of Ext.P7. Mr. Mohanan submitted that instructions are yet to be received from the District Collector. But, he is agreeable with this Court setting a time frame to the District Collector to dispose of Exts.P7 and P7(a).

(2.) Mr. P. Haridas, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that pursuant to Ext.P6 order passed by the Accommodation Controller, electricity supply has been restored to the building which was let out to the 4th respondent. But, according to him, supply is not restored to the building which was let out to the 5th respondent. According to Sri. Haridas, the 5th respondent is not in station. The building let out to him is in the possession of an unauthorised sub lessee. The learned Counsel, therefore, requested that Ext.P6 may be kept in abeyance at least in respect of the building let out to the 5th respondent.

(3.) Having regard to the submissions addressed and having gone through the materials placed on record by the petitioner, we feel that the writ petition can be straight away disposed of issuing the following directions;