K. Venkataswami, J.

1. These two writ petitions are preferred by the same petitioner who was an employee of the 3rd respondent Co-operative Stores. The first writ petition is directed against an order of the 2nd respondent, namely, Registrar of Co-operative Societies dismissing the petitioner's revision application against the order of suspension pending enquiry into the charges framed against him. The second writ petition is directed against the final order of dismissal from service.

2. The petitioner appeared in person and argued the matter. He fairly stated that in view of the final order of dismissal, the writ petition challenging the order of suspension has become infructuous without going into the merits. No costs.

3. Regarding writ petition No. 13070 of 1986, Mr. Ibrahim Kalifulla, learned Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition. According to the learned Counsel, the relief prayed for is only against the 3rd respondent and the respondents 1 and 2 are impleaded as parties just to make it appear that some relief is also asked for against them.

4. As I am inclined to accept the preliminary objection