Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner, working as Keezhsanthi (subordinate priest) in Neyyattinkara Sree Krishna Swami Temple at Neyyattinkara in Thiruvananthapuram district is said to have been transferred to Arangal before his tenure could be completed at Neyyattinkara.
3. In that context, the petitioner submitted Ext.P1 representation to the second respondent. Complaining of its non disposal, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
4. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Devaswom Board has fairly submitted that the authorities would W.P(. C)No.27275 OF 2014 : 2 :
be more than willing to consider Ext.P1 representation filed by the petitioner in accordance with law.
In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Devaswom Board, this Court, without entering into the merits of the matter, disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the second respondent to consider Ext.P1 representation filed by the petitioner in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to observe, if the petitioner seeks an opportunity of being heard in person, the second respondent shall consider the same. No orders as to cost.
jes DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE