The grievance of the petitioner is essentially against the extension granted to Ext.P2 order through another order dated 15.5.2014. The said order has not however been produced in this writ petition. In my view, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 15.5.2014 said to have been passed by the 2nd respondent, then, it is for him to challenge the said order through separate proceedings. Ext.P2 order, which is impugned in this writ petition has a validity only till 15.5.2014. Thus, leaving it open to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 15.5.2014 passed by the 2nd respondent, which according to the petitioner, has the effect of extending the validity of Ext.P2 order that is impugned in the writ petition, I dismiss the writ petition as infructuous. prp A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE