DINESAN Vs. EXCISE COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When the Writ Petition came up for admission, the learned counsel for the petitioner had pointed out that in view of the interim order passed in I.A. No. 57 of 2004 in O.P. No. 2182 of 2003 there is justification for an interim order to be passed in this case. Proceedings by the respondents to transfer Preventive Officers from other Divisions to Ernakulam Division and consequential reversion of the petitioners are challenged. The learned Government Pleader had opposed the application and the matter was posted for a detailed hearing.

(2.) The learned Government Pleader had taken notice for the respondents. In the meanwhile, impleading petition (I.A.No.771 of 2004) had been filed by additional respondents 3 to 6, who might have been adversely affected by grant of the prayers. It had been suggested that this may be heard along with O.P. No. 2182 of 2003, wherein, by interim orders, identically situated persons had secured an order staying their reversion.

(3.) However, in view of the nature of the relief that had been claimed in O.P. No. 2182 of 2003, I do not think it will be proper to club them together, since other contentions also are there. However, the expediency of continuance of the interim orders passed in I.A. No. 57 of 2004 will have to be looked into.