M/S.Indira Motor Service v. The Land Revenue Commissioner
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2015/20TH CHAITHRA, 1937 RP.No. 386 of 2015 (N) -------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.10531/2015, DATED 31-03-2015 ------------------ REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER :
---------------------------------------------------------- M/S.INDIRA MOTOR SERVICE, THANA, KANNUR-12, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, E.K.HYMAVATHI, D/O.SHYAMSUNDAR, AGED 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT JYOTHIKA, SUBASH ROAD, ONDEN PARAMBA, CIVIL STATION P.O, KANNUR-2.
BY ADVS.SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM SRI.B.G.BHASKAR RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS :
---------------------------------------------------- 1.
THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.
2.
PANAKKAT NAZARUDDIN, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.LATE KUNHIMOOSA @ MOOSAKKUTTY, BUSINESS, RESIDING AT CITADAL, THULLERI, KANNUR-1. 3.
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR- 1.
R1 & R3 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.C.VINCENT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-04-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Msd.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
--------------------------------------- R.P. No.386 of 2015 In W.P.(C) No.10531 of 2015 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of April, 2015
O R D E R
The writ petition was disposed of as per judgment dated 31.03.2015 in the following terms:
"4. Considering the limited nature of relief sought for, this Court does not find it necessary to deal with the merits of the case or to issue notice to the second respondent for the time being. The writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent/Land Revenue Commissioner to consider and pass final orders on Ext.P5 appeal, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also to the second respondent, at the earliest, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
5. 'Status quo' shall be maintained till such time."
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the order of 'status quo' passed by this Court is not properly given effect to, on the basis of some wrong and misconceived idea by the concerned respondent, which necessitated filing of R.P. for clarification.
R.P. No.386 of 2015 In W.P.(C) No. of 2015
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 3.
4. After hearing both the sides and after going through the materials on record, it is made clear that the order of 'status quo' passed by this Court is to the effect that Ext.P4 order will not stand in the way of the petitioner in running the petroleum unit till the disposal of Ext.P5 appeal.
The Review Petition is disposed of.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE sp