T.SURENDRAN NAIR v. TO THE 1 ST

W.P(c) No.7355/122Since applications for registration have been submitted by respondents 4 to 7, the 2nd respondent is bound to consider the said applications in accordance with law. The petitioners haveno right to be heard on the question as to whether registration cards are to be issued to respondents 4 to 7 or not. 3. The petitioners are persons who are holders of cards issued under Rule 26 A of the Rules. Respondents 4 to 7 are applicants for the issue of such registration cards. As per the Division Bench decision reported in Jnana Prakasam v.Natarajan [2002 (1) KLT 139], the petitioners have a right of appeal against the grant of registration cards to respondents 4 to7, if the petitioners are aggrieved by such action. Since the petitioners are entitled to challenge the grant of registration cards in appeal, I do not consider it necessary to direct the 2ndrespondent to consider the objections of the petitioners at this stage. The only question before the 2nd respondent is whether registration cards under Rule 26A are to be issued to respondents 4 to 7 or not. It is also necessary to be borne in mind that the 2nd respondent may even decide not to grant the registration that is sought. It is therefore clear that the right of appeal available to the petitioners as per the dictum of the W.P(c) No.7355/123Division Bench referred above, sufficiently safeguards the interests of the petitioners. 4. For the above reasons I do not find any grounds to entertain this Writ Petition. This Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE)rtr/ W.P(c) No.7355/124 K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.-----------------------------------------------------I.A.No.4834 of 2012 inW.P(c) No.7355 of 2012-T----------------------------------------------------Dated this the 21st day of May, 2012 ORDER This is a petition to implead the additional 8th respondent in the Writ Petition. This petition is not opposed and hence allowed. (K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE)rtr/