Malabar Devaswom Board v. M.P.Ravishankar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2015/1ST SRAVANA, 1937 RP.No. 26 of 2014 () IN WP(C).2691/2013 ----------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 2691/2013 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER IN I.A./1ST RESPONDENT IN W.P.: -------------------------------------------------------------------- MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD, KOZHIKODE-673001.

BY ADV. SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS IN I.A/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 IN W.P.:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

1. M.P.RAVISHANKAR,, AGED 44 YEARS S/O.K.P.RAVUNNI NAIR, GOVINDA NIVAS, PATHYIKKARA.P.O PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-673002.

2. THE KERALA KSHETRA SAMRAKSHANA SAMITHI, JAYAPRAKASH NARAYAN ROAD, KOZHIKODE, PIN-673002 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT.

3. J.R.KRISHNAN, THEKKEKARAKANDA MADAM, PATHAYIKKARA, PERINTHALMANNA MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679322.

R BY SRI.BABU S. NAIR THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & B. KEMAL PASHA, JJ.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.No.26/2014 in W.P.(C) No.2691/2013 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2015

O R D E R

Ramachandran Nair, J.

This review petition is filed with a petition to condone the delay of 74 days. As far as the review sought for by the petitioner is concerned, it is only as against the order passed in I.A.No.12105/2013 in W.P.(C) No.2691/2013. The said order was passed by us after considering Ext.P4 judgment of a Division Bench of this Court.

2. Shri Lakshmi Narayanan, learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that Ext.P4 judgment as well as the interim order were taken up before the Apex Court and the Special Leave Petition was dismissed as withdrawn by Annexure A1 order.

3. As far as the review petition is concerned, according to us, the review is sought as against an interim order and the main writ petition itself is pending. Therefore, it is upto the petitioner to defend the writ

RP 26/2014 petition itself. What we have expressed are the views for passing an interim order, and it will amount to a prima facie view. Therefore, it is upto the petitioner to move the Bench, if it deems so, for getting the matter disposed of. Apart from that, we do not find any reason to review the order also.

The review petition is therefore dismissed. No costs. (T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) (B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE.) kav/