AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Antony Dominic, J.—Petitioner has been appointed as ARD No. 167 under the 4thRespondent. While so, his licence was suspended by Ext.P5 orderfor the reasons mentioned therein. Appeal filed by the Petitionerwas rejected by Ext.P7 order of the 3rd Respondent. Against thatorder revision was filed before the 2nd Respondent which resultedin Ext.P9 order dated 21.12.2010 setting aside the impugnedorders and directing the 3rd Respondent to pass fresh orders in thematter. At that stage, the Petitioner submitted Ext.P10representation before the 4th Respondent requesting that he bepermitted to resume the business. It is complaining of in actionon the representation and seeking appropriate orders in the matter the writ petition is filed.
Now that pursuant to Ext.P9, the 3rd Respondent is seized of the matter, at this stage all that is required is that the 3rd Respondent should carry out the directions Ext.P9 and pass orders in the matter.
Therefore, I dispose of this writ petition directing that on the production of a copy of the judgment the 3rd Respondent will carry out the directions in Ext.P9 on the question of suspension of the Petitioner. The matter will be considered and orders in this behalf will be passed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 4 weeks thereafter.
Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 3rd Respondent for compliance.